






a"^ 






\V '/^. , :. - ■ ^ ■<^ ^ if// ,>)<.< \Yvr 

-x^^ ^"' '■''. % " ,o" s-\'.:*, -^^ 



C' V 






V <^ ^^ ti ^ -J. 'd^ . .. ... . .. a 



c'i 



V 1 



■1 -p 



•-^^ 



x^' .J 



~\} N 



V 






,\ - , ?'l 






,0 o 



o 



\- 



^.^b. ,cr^^.-;:^%^ ..^^^i:.':!^^ ,o-^\'^^,'^ 



•^^ <^ 



N . /' 



. .# 






^fl 



,0 o^ 



':-..A:^ ' ■J^.^N 






1^ 



-^ 



sOi 



0- 






S- */\«S .'■■..''J. o '^ ,^ - 



N^'' 






\^ ■/•--. 



v-^ ,\ •:> '/ 



■^.^ v^^ 



-s <k. 









.^^^ .^^ 



^ 



" " / C' 



v#- 









V^-\.^ ^0 



O 1 









^^M 



J - V 












."^ .^^^ 



\' s^ 



\ 



















^ 



■9 



''^^A.>' 



,0c 






i*. 



"'^^' .#■ ^ ^^K ' 



^:r- .<v\' 



\>' 



•^- -^^ '. 






-N,- 








■''N 


•-oo^ 


x«=,, - 


">:-■ --. 


0*^ -r", 



^-, ''/ 



A^ .^"l' ".''h. 




Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
in 2010 with funding from 
The Library of Congress 



http://www.archive.org/details/vindicationofrigOOhaye 



VINDICATION 



RIGHTS AND TITLES, 



POLITICAL AND TERRITORIAL, 



ALEXANDER, EARL OE STIRLmG & DOVAN, 



LORD PROPRIETOR OF CANADA AND NOVA SCOTIA. 



BY JOHN L. HAYES, 

COUNSELLOB AT LAW. 



WASHINGTON: 

GIDEON & CO., PRINTERS. 

1853. 



\s 






A country larger than Great Britain and France united was 
given, in the early part of the 17th century, with powers ahnost 
regal, to Sir William Alexander, of Menstrie, a descendant of 
Somerled, king of the Isles, 

But Sir William Alexander was less distinguished for birth 
than for ability and accomplishments. An ornament of the 
court of James the 6th, of Scotland, who called him his philo- 
sophical poet, he followed that Prince to London, and publish- 
ed a volume of poems which placed him in the highest rank 
among Scotch poets. He was created a knight, a gentleman 
of the chamber, and a privy councillor. From that moment 
he renounced literary glory to occupy himself with politics 
and government. 

James 1st had granted letteis patent to a company for the 
establishment of an English colony in North America; but this 
company, terrified at the difficulty of the enterprise, wished to 
give it up, when Sir William Alexander, more courageous, 
obtained -a grant of Nova Scotia, with the title of Hereditary 
Lieutenant, by charter dated Windsor, 10th September, 1621. 

In a few years Sir William Alexander was made a Scotch 
peer, as Lord Alexander of TuUibodie, Viscount of Canada, 
Viscount and Earl of Stirhng and Earl of Dovan, and in- 
vested with immense territories in the new world and large es- 
tates in Scotland. 

The following royal charters under the great seal were grant- 
ed to the Earl of Stirling, and were recognised and confirmed 
by act of Parliament in the presence of King Charles the 1st. 
These are all on record at Edinburgh: 

10th September, 1621. Original charter of Nova Scotia. 



4 VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 

12th July, 1625. Charter of INovo Damus of the lands, 
lordship and barony of Nova Scotia. 

3d May, 1627. Charter of the country and dominion of 
New Scotland. 

2d February, 1628. Original charter of Canada, including 
fifty leagues of bounds on both sides of the River St. Lawrence 
and the Great Lakes. 

There were other patents and charters, among them letters 
patent of April 22d, 1635, "for a tract of Maine and the Island 
of Stirling, (Long Island,) and islands adjacent;" and the char- 
ter of Novo Damus, dated 7th December, 1639, which was a 
re grant of all the lands and honors which the Earl had at any 
time received from James 1st and Charles 1st. This charter 
is the only one attempted to be disputed. But its existence is 
wholly unnecessary to support the present Earl's title to the 
lands and honors. 

These charters gave the Earl of Stirling vast political and 
administrative powers. He was made his Majesty's hereditary 
lieutenant general over the whole countries of Nova Scotia and 
Canada. He was also made justice general, high admiral, 
lord of regality, and hereditary steward. The power was con- 
ferred upon him of making officers of state and justice, of con- 
ferring titles of honor, of coining money, and the privilege of 
making laws concerning the public state, good and government 
of the country. He had the power of appointing one hundred 
and fifty baronets, called Baronets of Nova Scotia, who were 
to take precedence of all other baronets. Under this power the 
first Earl actually made over one hundred baronets; nearly 
fifty of the present baronets in Great Britain hold their titles 
from patents granted by the first Earl of Stirling. 

It is proper to remark that the expenses of the first coloniza- 
tion had already been incurred by Sir William Alexander be- 
fore the first charter of 10th September, 1621, was granted by 
James 1st, and that is the reason alleged in the charter for the 
grant: "For these causes, as well as on account of the faithful 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 5 

and acceptable service of our beloved councillor, Sir William 
Alexander, knight, to us rendered and to be rendered, who, 
first of our subjects, at his own expense, endeavored to plant 
this foreign colony, and sought out for colonization the divers 
lands circumscribed, (fcc, we do grant, &c." 

This immense grant was therefore not a mere favor; it was 
a reward for efforts made and expenses incurred in colonizing 
these great wastes of the new world. 

Soon after obtaining the charter of 10th September, 1621, 
the Earl devoted the whole of his large fortune to the enter- 
prise of colonization, where every thing was to be created; and 
the grant is less extraordinary since the King had no money in 
his treasury, nor a navy, which was only created in the time of 
Cromwell, The country was inhabited by savages and threat- 
ened by France, which claimed it by reason of the discovery 
of Canada by Jaques (^artier in 1534. The paramount claim 
of the English crown was founded on the discovery of the con- 
tinent of North America by Sebastian Cabot in 1497, who took 
possession in the name of Henry 7th. The vast expenses of 
colonizing and fortifying, all carried on under the superinten- 
dence of the Earl's eldest son, who inhabited during twelve 
years Port Royal, in Nova Scotia, as governor of the new col- 
ony, was worthy of recompense; and when, through the ina- 
ability of the King to aid the Earl, the country at length fell 
into the hands of the French, =^10,000 sterling was granted to 
compensate him for his losses. This grant expressly stated, 
"it is no wise for quitting the title, rights, or possession of New 
Scotland, or any part thereof, but only for the satisfaction of 
the losses aforesaid." This sum has never been paid, and is 
still due, with interest thereon, to the heirs of the first Earl. 

Through the surrender just mentioned Nova Scotia became 
Acadia, and only finally returned to England at the peace of 
1763. 

During the French occupation Lord Stirling and his sons 
vainly attempted resistance. The rights of the family were 



6 VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 

necessarily suspended. Nevertheless, in the various negotia- 
tions and treaties between England and France, they have 
been repeatedly brought forward by England in support of her 
claim of sovereignty; the royal charters and legislative acts in 
favor of the Earl of Stirling and his heirs being her strongest 
ground of argument. The British Government produced these 
charters before the late King of the Netherlands, when he sat 
as arbitrator on the question of the northeastern boundary. 

The troubles which desolated the three kingdoms during the 
17th century, overturned rights and titles of property, ruined 
some ancient families, and impoverished others. The rich do- 
mains of the Stirlings in Scotland, partly on account of debts 
incurred by the family to carry out the schemes of colonization, 
and partly on account of the civil and religious agitations of that 
period, passed into other hands. 

Before proceeding to detail the circumstances which have 
occasioned the delay in the assertion of the claims of the Stir- 
ling family, we will very briefly allude to the fact that during 
the last century pretensions were vainly set forth to the lands 
and titles of this family. Canada was still under the French 
rule when, in 1758, William Alexander, afterwards a general 
in the American army during the revolution, appeared in 
Great Britain, and, assuming the title, presented himself as 
heir to the lands and honors. Gen. Alexander was probably 
descended from some one of the many Alexanders of the clan 
brought to Nova Scotia by the first Earl of Stirling, all of whom 
were driven to the south by the French. The tradition of 
relationship to the Earl doubtless induced him to set up his 
claim. It is sufficient here to say, that he took up the title and 
bore it without having gone through the proper legal steps or 
formalities to support it, and that he did not claim to descend 
from the first Earl, but from a supposed uncle, which descent 
could have given him no title to the lands or honors. He pre- 
sented his claim to the House of Lords, which no Scotch peer 
was required to do; but the fact of the existence of lineal de- 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING, 7 

scendants of the first Earl, who were then mere youths in col- 
lege, being notorious, the House of Lords rejected his claim. 
He re-embarked for America, where he died without issue male, 
in 1783. 

The last male descendants of William, first Earl of Stirling, 
were in consequence of the civil wars, religious troubles, pro- 
scriptions, confiscations, and revolutions which agitated Eng- 
land during more than a csntury, a Presbyterian minister at 
Birmingham, who died in 1765, a man greatly honored for his 
piety; and Benjamin Alexander, 8th Earl of Stirling dejure, a 
learned physician who died in London in 1768. The rights 
of Benjamin passed to his eldest sister, for, by the Scottish law 
of descent, as well by the limitations of the charters, the eldest 
heir female of the last heir male takes the inheritance. This 
sister dying unmarried in 1764, the rights finally passed to ano- 
ther sister, Hannah Alexander, de jure 2nd Countess of Stir- 
ling. The last heiress of the titles and rights of the house of 
Stirling, married in 1769 William Humphrys of the Larches, 
in Warwickshire, Of this marriage, out of eight children, three 
only survived, Alexander 9th and present Earl, and two daugh- 
ters. 

Thus the rights of the family were, during fifty years, in fe- 
male heirs, or, in other words, during that period the circum- 
stances of the family were such that no steps could be taken to 
pursue rights which, without being disregarded or contested, 
required to be established , But before the transmission of these 
rights to females, John and Benjamin Alexander were too ex- 
clusively occupied with their education and establishment in 
their professions even to take up their rank. The earlier as- 
sumption of the honors of the family was prevented by other 
obvious reasons. 

1st, Because the old Scotch estates had, during the civil wars, 
been seized by others, who, thus powerful, were ready to de- 
fend them at all hazards, 

2d. Because Canada and Nova Scotia were only fully re- 
stored to England at the peace of 1763, a short time previous 



8 VINOrCATION OP LORD STIRLING. 

to the deaths of both John and Benjamin, last heirs male of the 
first Earl. 

3d. Because the papers of the family had been scattered, 
lost, or stolen. 

4th. Because during the wars between England and France 
under the republic, the present Earl and his father were de- 
tained in France as prisoners of war with thousands of English, 
and it was only after a detention of twelve years, and after mak- 
ing many efforts to recover considerable sums of money which 
had been confiscated there, that he returned in 1815 to his own 
country. 

5th. Finally, because it was necessary, before commencing 
so important an affair, to have ample means, which though 
abundant at first might become insufficient in the case of a 
long resistance. 

As soon as the necessary arangements were completed, the 
present Earl of Stirling proceeded to take the proper meas- 
ures for the re- establishment and acknowledgment of his rights. 

He was fortified with evidence to prove the descent of the 
titles and lands, as follows : 

William, the first Earl, died in February, 1640, and was 
succeeded by his infant grandson, the only son of his deceased 
eldest son, William, 2d Earl. He survived his grandfather six 
months, and died under eight years of age. He was succeed- 
ed by his uncle Henry, third Earl, who was the eldest surviv- 
ing son of the first Earl; Henry, third Earl, died in 1644, 
and was succeeded by his only son, Henry, fourth Earl. 
Henry, fourth Earl, died in 1690, leaving four sons, Henry, 
eldest and fifth Earl, William, Robert, and Peter j who died 
before their eldest brother. At the death of Henry, fifth Earl, 
without issue in 1739, the succession went to Rev. John Al- 
exander, grandson and heir male of John, fourth son of the 
first Earl, who died in Ireland, in 1666. The Rev. John 
Alexander, sixth Earl de jure, died at Dublin, 1st November, 
1743; four years after the death of Henry, fifth Earl. The 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 9 

Rev. John Alexander, sixth Earl de jure, left four children, 
John, 7th Earl of Stirling de jure, who died unmarried, 29th 
December, 1765, Benjamin, eighth Earl de jure, who died 
unmarried, 18th April, 1768. Mary, countess of Stirling de 
ju\e, who succeeded upon the extinguishment of all the heirs 
male, and died unmarried, April 28th, 1794j Hannah, second 
countess of Stirling, wife of William Humphrys, who died 
12th September, 1814. Upon the death of his mother, Alex- 
ander, the ninth and present Earl both de f do and de jure, 
succeeded to the titles and estates of the family. 

We do not propose here to furnish the evidences of descent, 
or to detail historically and in the order of time, the steps which 
were taken by the present Earl of Stirling to establish his 
rights. We propose to show that — 

I. It has been judicially established, by courts of compe- 
tent jurisdiction that the present Earl of Stirling is lineally 
descended from the first Earl of Stirling, and the real heir to 
his title and estates. 

II. The title and position of the present Earl of Stirling 
have been officially recognised on the most solemn occasions 
in England and Scotland. 

I. Judicial recognition. 

By the Scottish law certain judicial proceedings are particu- 
larly and especially provided for the trial of the fact of heir- 
ship. He who is truly heir of a deceased person, before he 
can have an active title to the estate which was in his ances- 
tor, must be served and retoured heir by an inquest. These 
services proceed upon a brief, called a brief of inquest, and 
are of two kinds, general and special. The general service 
proceeds on a brief, issuing from the Scotch chancery, di- 
rected to a judge there, and must be proclaimed at the head 
borough of the jurisdiction within which the heir is to be 
served. After the expiration of fifteen days, the service is 
tried before the J udge. The jury to try the heirship consists of 
fifteen persons, who are sworn in by the judge to act impar- 
2 



10 VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 

tially. The apparent heir produces to the jury his claim as 
heir, and they may proceed, not only on the evidence offered 
by the claimant, but on the proper knowledge of any two of 
themselves, for they are considered both in the light of 
judges and witnesses. The point of inquiry is, whether the 
claimant be the next and lawful heir of the deceased. If it 
appear to the jury that the claim is proved, they serve the 
claimant, *. e., they declare him heir to the deceased by a 
sentence, or service, signed by the chancellor of the jury, and 
attested by the judge. The clerk to the service then prepares 
a return of the claim of service, with the verdict of the jury to the 
chancellor; which after being thus recorded and rendered in the 
chancery books, is called the retour. The general service is com- 
pleted as soon as it is retoured, and carries to the heir the complete 
right of all the heritable subjects on which the ancestor had not 
taken seisin. These services are not traversible, or cannot be 
denied, but must be taken as true, until by regular process of 
reduction, at the suit of a better claimant, they are falsified. 

Lord Stirling has been returned by this due form of law: 

1st. On the 7th of February, 1826, heir to his deceased 
mother, Hannah, Countess of Stirling, as heiress to her bro- 
ther, Benjamin, eighth Earl of Stirling, dejure, who was last 
heir male of the body of William, first Earl of Stirling. 

2dly. On the 11th of October, 1830, nearest and lawful 
heir in general of his great-great-great- grandfather, William, 
first Earl of Stirling. 

3dly. On the 30th May, 1831, nearest and lawful heir of 
tailsie and provision to his ancestor, William, first Earl of 
Stirling. 

When the heir desires to perfect his title to special subjects, 
in which the ancestor died vested and seized, he obtains what 
is called a special service. The special service proceeds upon 
a brief issued from the chancery, directed, in cases like the 
present, to the sheriff depute of Edinburgh, or his substitute. 
The service proceeds in the usual form; the jury of fifteen 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. II 

being appointed, the claim made, and the evidence offered. 
The evidence and proof required are more ample in this than 
in the general service. The principal points to be proved are, 
that the ancestor is dead, and the precise time of his death, 
and that he died seized of the land specified in the claim, in 
whose hands the fee is at the time of service, (fee. These 
heads being proved, the jury serve the heir. An extract of 
the proceedings returned into chancery, is said to be the retour 
of the heir's service. 

4thly. By a special service, such as has been described, the 
present Lord Stirling was, on the 2d of July, 1831, served as 
nearest and lawful heir in special of William, first Earl of 
Stirhng, to take up the fee of the lands comprised in the 
aforesaid charters. 

The following extracts from this important act of court are 
taken from the records, register house, Edinburgh: 

"The 10th of June, 1831, a brief was issued forth of his Ma- 
jesty's chancery, directed to the sheriff depute of the sheriffdom 
of Edinburgh, specially constituted as aforesaid, at the instance 
of the said Alexander, Earl of Stirling, &c., for precognoscing 
him nearest and lawful heir of the said deceased William, 
Earl of Stirling, his great-great-great-grandfather, in all and 
sundry lands, and others in which the said William, Earl of 
Stirling, died last vest and seized as of fee," (fee. 

"William Swanston, officer of the said sheriff, with wit- 
nesses, passed to the market cross of the burgh of Edinburgh, 
^-c, upon the 15th day of June last passed, being a market 
day, and in open market time duly and openly proclaimed 
and executed the brieves in due form of law." 

'^On the 2d July, 1831, ^within the parliament or new 
session house,' at Edinburgh, ^in the court-room of the first 
division of the court of session, in presence of George Tait, 
esquire, sheriff substitute of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, as 
sheriff of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh,' (fee. Thomas Chris- 
topher Banks, esquire, as procurator and mandatory of the 



12 VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 

Earl of Stirling, having demanded that he should be served 
and cognosced nearest and lawful heir of the said deceased 
William, Earl of Stirling, his great-great-great-grandfather, in 
all and sundry the lands, continents, and islands situate and 
lying in America, and others therein particularly described, 
&c." ^'Produced the writs after mentioned, viz., book the 
51st of the register of the great seal, containing the record of 
a charter of novo daraus, under the said seal, of date the 12th 
day of July, in the year 1625, made, given, and granted by 
his Majesty, Charles the First, in favor of the said William, 
Earl of Stirling, (then and therein named Sir William Alex- 
ander,) of the lands, barony, and lordship of Nova Scotia, in 
America," &c.; ^'secundo, extract registered instrument of 
seisin, following upon the precept in the said charter, in favor 
of the said William, Earl of Stirling, of date 29th of Sep- 
tember, in the said year 1625, recorded in the general register 
of seisins, &c.; and lastly, general retour of the service expede 
before the bailies of the burgh of Canongate, of the said 
Alexander, Earl of Stirling, as heir of the said deceased Wil- 
liam, Earl of Stirling, his great-great- great-grandfather, which 
retour is dated the 11th day of October, 1830, and duly re- 
toured to chancery," &.c. Thus, 'Hhe sheriff substitute of 
the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, as judge aforesaid, caused the 
said Lindsay Rae, officer of the court, to call peremptorily and 
openly in judgment, all parties having, or pretending to have, 
interest, which being accordingly done, and none compearing 
to object against the service of the said brieve, and lawful time 
of day being wasted, the said procurator and mandatory pro- 
tested contra omnes comparentes , that they should be silent 
forever after; and also desired that the said claim, and writs 
produced for verifying said claim, might be referred and ad- 
mitted to the knowledge of the inquest before named, and the 
said sheriff substitute of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, as judge 
aforesaid; finding the said desire to be just and reasonable, he 
admitted thereof, and remitted the said matter to the know- 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 13 

ledge of the inquest; and who being all solemnly sworn by the 
said judge, they made faith de fideli administratione , and 
then elected the said Patrick Robertson, Esq., advocate, to 
be their chancellor; and thereupon the said claim Was openly 
and pubhcly read, and compared with the aforesaid writings 
produced for vouching and verifying thereof; and thereafter 
(he said sheriff substitute of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, as 
judge aforesaid, caused the said Lindsay Rae, officer of court, 
call again thrice peremptorily in judgment at the most patent 
door of the said new session house, all parties having, or pre- 
tending to have interest; which being accordingly done, and 
none compearing to object, the said procurator and mandatory 
again protested cont7^a onuies no7i conipare7ttes ihoii they should 
be ever thereafter silent; and then they, the said worthy persons 
of inquest, all in one voice and without variance, by 
the mouth of their said chancellor, found the aforesaid claim 
sufficiently instructed and proven, and therefore served and 
cognosced the said Alexander , Earl of Stirling, Sj'c, nearest 
and lawful heir in special of the' said deceased JVilliam, 
Earl of Stirling, his great-great- great-grandfather, in all 
and sundry the lands and others contained in the said claim, 

On the 8th of July, 1831, in virtue of this special service, 
Lord Stirling was, by precept from his Majesty, (William IV,) 
directed forth of his said chancery in Scotland, to the sheriff 
of Edinburgh, infeft in the whole county of Nova Scotia, in- 
cluding New Brunswick and Canada, and is therefore placed 
in the legal occupation and possession of all the lands, rights, 
and privileges conveyed by these charters, not granted by his 
ancestors or alienated by the Government. Seisin must ordi- 
narily be taken on the ground of the lands contained in the 
precept. But, by the charters, the American property is made 
part of the county of Edinburgh for the purposes of seisin, 
which is directed to be taken, and was taken at the castle of 
Edinburgh as the most conspicuous place. This remarkable 



14 vtN£)iCATioJ«^ OP Lord Stirling. 

exception to the rule as to taking seisin on the ground, is thus 
alluded to in Erskine's Institutes, B. II, Tit. Ill, § 36. "This 
rule may, in cases of necessity, be dispensed with by proper 
authority, as it was in the seisin of Nova ScOtia and Canada 
in favor of Viscount Stirling, which, by the King's special 
appointment, was taken at the gate of the castle of Edinburgh, 
and afterwards ratified by Parliament, 1633." 

Thus all the formalities required by the Scottish law have 
been fulfilled by the present Earl of StirUng. He has per- 
formed every act prescribed by ancient Scottish customs, not 
only to establish the fact of his heirship, but to vest in himself 
the actual possession of the estates of his ancestor. By all 
legal forms he has recovered his ancient patrimony. He is at 
this moment in actual possession by law of his estate and title. 

Although the verdicts of these four juries are legally conclu- 
sive as to the question of heirship, we may observe, that the 
sworn conclusions of these sixty men, who have been called 
to pass upon this question, possess the highest moral weight in 
view of their individual fitness for such an investigation. To 
show the character of the men who have passed their judg- 
ment upon Lord Stirling's rights, we subjoin a list of the jury 
on the 4th or special service. 

4th or special service 2nd July, 1831, before George Tait, 
Esq., sheriff, substitute of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, as 
sheriff specially constituted, in the court-room of the first divi- 
sion of the court of session. 

1 . Patrick Robertson, Esq. , advocate, (now Lord of session,) 
chancellor of the jury. 

2. James Welsh, Esq., advocate of Edinburgh. 

3. David Johnston, Esq., M. D. do. 

4. John Renton, Esq., writer to the Signet of Edinburgh. 

5. James Balfour, Esq., do. do. do. 

6. James McDonell, Esq., do. do. do. 

7. John Dickie, Esq., do. do. do. 

8. Henry Ingliss, Esq., do. do. do. 



VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 1§ 

9. James Souber, Esq., writer to the Signet of Edinburgh. 

10. John Stirling, Esq., accountant do. 

11. John Adams, solicitor of the Supreme courts do. 
] 2. John Philips, do. do. do. do. 

13. Thomas Ranken, do. do. do. do. 

14. William Wallace Sibbald, Esq., solicitor of the Supreme 
courts of Edinburgh. 

15. Joseph Low, writer, (attorney,) of Edinburgh. 

It is impossible to believe that these fifteen gentlemen, two 
of whom were eminent advocates, ten others lawyers, well 
known and respected, a distinguished physician of Edinburgh, 
a member of an ancient baronial family, and a respectable ac- 
countant, would ^^unanimously , and without variance, ^^ have 
sustained claims which had not the strongest foundation in law 
and justice. 

The verdicts of these juries have not been finally reversed, 
reduced or set aside, although most arbitrary and illegal pro- 
ceedings, of which we shall speak hereafter, have been com- 
menced for this purpose at the instance of the Government. 
Now, it is well settled, that when a court having competent 
jurisdiction has pronounced upon i\\e status, the state or con- 
dition of a person, the decree is to be deemed of universal 
authority and obligation. In suits at law in the provinces or 
in this country, where Lord Stirling's rights are brought in 
question, it will only be necessary for him to produce authen- 
ticated copies of the records of these services, and to show that 
he is the person who obtained the verdicts, and the question of 
heirship must be taken as established. 

II. Official recognition. 

Having shown the judicial recognition of Lord Stirling's 
rights, we have proved all that is necessary for the assertion 
of these rights in Great Britain, the British North American 
Colonies, or this country. But as it may be interesting to 
compare the former official acts of the authorities in England 
and Scotland w^ith the more recent acts of the officers of the 



16 VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 

Crown, we will proceed to show that the position and title of 
the present Earl of Stirling have been officially recognised in 
Scotland and England on the most solemn occasions. 

Lord Stirling, it must be remembered, is a peer of Scotland, 
and his case must be distinguished from a claim to an English 
peerage. The party who claims to be an English peer must 
in all cases apply by petition to the sovereign for his writ of 
summons to Parliament, the English peers being summoned 
singly by the Sovereign's writs- whereupon his application is 
referred to the House of Lords, or it may be to some of the 
judges or law officers. But neither lineal or collateral heirs of 
Scottish peerages are bound to prove their right before the 
House of Lords. Wallace, one of the most eminent legal au- 
thorities upon questions of peerage succession in Scotland, says, 
in reference to Scotch dignities: 

^^Honors are not enjoyed by any person to whom they de- 
volve under the will or right of inheritance of his ancestor, 
but are derived, by every possessor of them, solely from the 
favor of the King, as if each successive individual possible to 
come into being, and inherit them, had been distinctly fore- 
seen, particularly named, and originally called in the royal 
charter which granted them. In consequence, a peer requires 
not a service, a conveyance, or the using of any form to acquire 
a dignity that is cast upon him by descent, but on the death 
of his ancestor is fully vested in it merely by existence, and 
may assume it at pleasure." 

(A disquisition on the right of jurisdiction in peerage succes- 
sions, particularly in the peerage of Scotland.) 

The authority and grounds upon which the Peer has taken 
on himself the honors are open to be questioned by any one 
who can allege, and, after alleging, clearly prove, that he or 
she has a nearer interest and better title than the party, &-c., 
assuming them. 

Since the Union of 1707, the right in all peers of Scotland 
of exercising peerage privileges has consisted in obeying the 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 17 

Royal proclamation to attend at Holyrood House for the elec- 
tion of sixteen peers to represent the whole body in the Parlia- 
ment of Great Britain, either on a General Election, or on a 
vacancy occurring. The Royal proclamation on this occasion 
may be compared with the writ of summons of an English 
peer to Parliament. If the Scotch peer takes his seat by 
virtue of it, and be not protested against, but has his place and 
precedence allowed him, the oaths administered, and his vote 
received unanimously by the Lords present, he is to all intents 
and purposes invested in the enjoyment of his peerage honors, 
as much and as perfectly as an English peer, who shall have 
taken his seat in the House of Lords under a writ of summons 
without counter claim of any other peer objecting thereto, or 
pretending better right. 

In pursuance of the Scottish law, usage, and precedent. Lord 
Stirling, having taken advice of learned counsel as to the course 
to be pursued, publicly resumed his title on the second of June, 
1825. The peers of Scotland were commanded by Royal 
proclamation to assemble at the Palace at Holyrood House on 
the second of June following, to elect one of the sixteen rep- 
resentative peers. The Karl of Stirling set off for Edinburgh, 
and appeared at the day of election. It was well known^-*^ 
the peers assembled that the Rev. John Alexander, of Dublin, 
sixth Earl, grandfather of the present Earl, was entitled to his 
rank, so that as soon as Lord Stirling announced himself as 
his grandson, he was congratulated on the resumption of his 
title. He was received at Holyrood House as a peer, and 
was immediately ushered into the private room to wait there, 
with the other peers, the time of proceeding to the gallery. 
When the Lord Provost and magistrates entered to announce 
that all was ready for forming the procession to the gallery, the 
Earl of Glasgow stepped forward, and gave the strongest proof 
of his own feelings, as well as those of the other peers present, 
by requesting that he would take precedence as the joremier, 
by the date of the creation of his Earldom, among those assem- 
3 



18 VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 

bled. Lord Stirling took his place at the table, and on being 
called, took the oaths, and voted without protest or objection 
of any kind, which proves that his rights were already ac- 
knowledged by public opinion. He gave his vote for Viscount 
Strathallan, who was elected. 

Since that period the Earl of Stirling has voted at several 
general elections, exercising all the privileges of the peerage, 
and triumphing without difficulty over the ill will of a very 
small number of hostile peers, whom the recognition of his 
rights alarmed, on account of the Scottish estates of his family 
which had long before passed into other hands. On the list of 
sixty-four peers, who voted at the general election of the se- 
cond of September, 1830, the £!arl of Stirling is inscribed be- 
tween the Earl of Dumfries and the Earl of Elgin, and this 
list, transcribed from the register of Edinburgh, was printed 
in London by order of the House of Lords. 

We again find the £]arl of Stirling set down after the Earl of 
Lauderdale upon the list of the sixty-one peers of Scotland 
who voted at the general election of 3d June, 1831 ; a list 
which was also printed, and which like the preceding is ex- 
tracted ''from the records of the general register house of his 
Majesty at Edinburgh." 

Fmally, in the great roll of the peers of Scotland, extracted 
from the same register, and containing 159 peers, (viz., the 
Prince of Wales, eleven Dukes, three Marquises, seventy -Jive 
Earls, seventeen Viscounts, and fifty-two Lords,) the Earl of 
iS'^zWiwg" may again be seen placed between the Earls of Dum- 
fries and Elgin. This general register was drawn up by virtue 
of an "order of the right honorable the Lords spiritual and tem- 
poral in ParUament assembled, of the 23d of August, 1831 
requiring that there be laid before the House a copy of the 
union roll of the peerage of Scotland, and a list of all those peers 
who voted at all general elections since the year 1800." The 
printing of this roll was ordered by the same House the 3d 
of September, 1831. 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 19 

We therefore see on the register of the King's general reg- 
ister house at Edinburgh, the Earl of Stirling three times en- 
tered upon the list of the peers who voted at one single election 
and at two general elections in 1825, 1830, and 1831; lists 
which have been returned to the upper House, and printed by- 
its order, which are kept on its records and published in its 
minutes ! 

We see the Earl of Stirling's name inserted npon the great 
roll of the peers of Scotland, in 1831, a roll inscribed in the 
archives of the King at Edinburgh, drawn up by order of the 
House of Lords, entered upon its register, and transcribed upon 
its minutes ! Since that period the Earl of Stirhng has voted 
again at the general elections of 1835 and 1837. His name 
is also entered on the list of those peers who competed at those 
elections ; lists recorded in the Royal archives of the upper 
House. From these lists results the proof that from 1825 to 
1837, the present Earl of Stirling, always recognised in his 
rights, voted during a period of twelve years as a peer of Scot- 
land without effective protest. 

Thus recognised by his peers, and by the magistrates and 
courts of Edinburgh, Lord Stirhng needed but one recognition, 
that of the Sovereign. 

He had already received the recognition of Lord Chancel- 
lor Lyndhurst, before whom he had qualified (in the forms 
required by law, where a peer of Scotland is unable to attend 
personally an election of peers) to vote by signed hst. Some 
delay having been occasioned by the Chancellor 's wish to be fully 
satisfied of theEarl's right to execute his peerage privileges, and 
his Lordship having summoned council to attend him, before he 
would sign the necessary certificate, when satisfied, he wrote 
the following note to Lord Stirling : 

''The Lord Chancellor presents his compliments to Lord 
Stirling, and has directed the Great Seal to be affixed to the 
writ certifying his Lordship's having taken the usual oaths. 



20 VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 

The Lord Chancellor will regret very much if the delay has 
put Lord Stirling to any inconvenience." 

George street, 20th August, 1830. 

Copy of the direction on the envelope of the note — 
'' The Earl of Stirling, 

17 Baker street, 

Portman square." 
'' Lyndhurst." 
And sealed with his Lordship's arms. 

In 1831, the highest law authority in Scotland, all the thir- 
teen Judges, concurred with the Chancellor of England in re- 
cognising Lord Stirling's rank and title. An action was 
brought by the Earl in 1829 to recover a Scotch estate. The 
first objection, urged by the defendants to the plaintiff's right, 
was that he was not entitled to sue as a Scotch peer. The 
case having been argued before the thirteen judges, the Lord 
Chief Justice Clerk (the presiding Judge,) delivered the follow- 
ing reasons and judgment, of the former we give an abstract. 

^' It is stated positively that at the election of 1825 he voted 
without protest ; and in the next place in 1830, went before 
the Lord High Chancellor of England to take the oaths, 
and was received and qualified as a peer, and certainly has got 
the usual certificates, and at the last general election his vote 
was received without protest . # m m m m 

"We have pretty real evidence that my Lord Rosebery, who 
moved the resolutions, (resolutions upon which the opposition 
of the defendants was grounded,) was convinced, and well 
knew it did not apply to a case in this situation j I have not a 
doubt that his Lordship was quite satisfied that it did not apply 
to dormant peerages, and that they were not the claims which 
should have been excluded." &c. Then follows the judg- 
ment. 

''Edinburgh, February 9th, 1831. The Lords having heard 
counsel on the first preliminary defence against the action, sus- 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 21 

tain instance in the name of Alexander, Earl of Stirling, and 
appoint tiie case to be put on tiie Sura mar roll, that parties may 
be heard quoad ultra. 

(Signed) D. BOYLE, J.P. D:' 

Other judicial recognitions of Lord Stirling's title were about 
the same time made in England. In November, 1831, in an 
action before C. J. Tindal, of the court of Common Pleas, 
where an attempt was made to deprive Lord Stirling of his 
peerage privilege of filing common bail, and special bail had 
been insisted on by the plaintiff, Sir Henry Digby, the Chief 
Justice, Judges Gaselee, Bosanquet and Alderson, concurring, 
discharged the defendant from arrest without costs. The Chief 
Justice, after stating the provisions for the peerage of Scotland 
as to precedence at the election of representative peers, observ- 
ed that Lord Stirling had three times voted on such occasions^ 
first in 1825, then in 1830, and last in 1831; that no objection 
had been made till the last occasion, when a protest was made 
against his vote; "still, however, notwithstanding that protest 
he voted, and his vote was allowed to remain on record. It 
seems to me that the circumstance of the protest does not at all 
add to the invalidity of the title; but the voting in defiance of 
the protest rather has a tendency the other way." The same 
question was also decided in the same way on a similar occa- 
sion by Lord Tenterden, Chief Justice, of the King's bench. 

On the 30th of August, 1831, Lord Stirling received an of- 
ficial and deliberate recognition of his title from the highest 
officers of the realm. On the 29th of August, a few weeks 
after receiving seisin and investiture of Nova Scotia and Can- 
ada, with all the vice regal powers and privileges granted by 
the charters, he petitioned the King in council to be allowed to 
do homage at the ceremony of the coronation of the King, 
William the 4th, as Hereditary Lieutenant and Lord Proprietor 
of Nova Scotia and Canada, or that his Majesty would be gra- 
ciously pleased to dispense with the said homage under a salvo 
jure for any future occasion. This petition was presented with 



22 viNDreATroN op LORb stirltng.' 

the knowledge that the arrangement of the ceremonies had al- 
ready been made. The next day the following letter was re- 
ceived: 

"Council office, Whitehall, 30 Aug., 1831. 

" My Lord: I am directed by the Lords of the Committee 
of Council, appointed to consider of his Majesty's coronation, 
to acquaint you that his Majesty has approved of a ceremonial 
on the occasion of the approaching coronation, in which your 
Lordship is assigned no part. I am also to acquaint your Lord- 
ship that you are at liberty to bring forward any claim of which 
you may deem yourself legally possessed, upon any future occa- 
sion. 

"I have the honor to be, your Lordship's obedient servant, 
(Signed) C. C. GREVILLE." 

"The Earl of Stirling." 

Thus the King in council recognised Lord Stirling in the 
most formal official communication that could have been made 
on the great occasion of his approaching coronation, as a peer 
of Scotland; and the following extract from the " Times news- 
paper,^' of 31st August, 1831, shows what members of the 
privy council were present when Mr. Greville was directed to 
write the preceding answer: 

"The Lords of his Majesty's most honorable Privy Council 
held a meeting yesterday afternoon at the council office to make 
arrangements for the coronation of their Majesties. 

"There were present the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bi- 
shop of London, the Lord Chancellor, the Marquis of Luns- 
downe. Earl Grey, the Earl of Carlisle, Viscount Althorp, Vis- 
count Melbourne, the Marquis of Cholmondeley, Lord Plun- 
ket, the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Vice 
Chancellor, the Comptroller of the Household, and the Duke 
of Richmond. 

"Sir George Nayler, Garter King of Arms, the Master of the 
Lord Chamberlain's Office, and the Surveyor General of the 
Board of Works, were in attendance to receive instructions from 
their Lordships . Mr . Greville attended as clerk of the council . ' ' 



VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 23 

It must be admitted that no recognition of a peer could be 
more conplete and decisive than this official act done after de- 
liberation, upon a solemn public occasion, in the name of the 
King, by his council. It cannot be recalled, it cannot be de- 
nied, it cannot be explained away. The proofs are in posses- 
sion and recorded. 

Lord Stirling having written to the late Earl Grey, as the 
King's prime minister, on the subject of his claims, in virtue 
of the special service and seisin which he had obtained, receiv- 
ed the following reply : 

^'Downing street, ^th September, 1831. 

"My Lord: I am desired by Lord Grey to acknowledge the 
receipt of your Lordship's letter, and to inform your Lordship 
that he has transmitted it to Viscount Goderich, the secretary 
of state for the colonies, as it relates to matters under that de- 
partment. 

"Lord Grey desires me to express his thanks to your Lord- 
ship for the terms of confidence and good will towards his Ma- 
jesty's Government which your Lordship's letter contained. 

" I have the honor to be, my Lord, your Lordship's obedient 
servant. 

(Signed) CHARLES WOOD." 

"The Earl of Stirling, &c. 

This letter was directed by Lord Gray himself thus — 
"The Earl of Stirling, 

"20 Baker street, 

"Portman square." 
"Grey." 
And sealed with his Lordship's small seal. 

Thus the Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, Earl Grey, the Prime 
Minister, the Lords of the committee of council, in the King's 
name corresponded officially with the Earl of Stirling, and 
addressed him by his title. Thus was he acknowledged in 
London as in Edinburgh, in Downing street and Whitehall as 
at Holy rood. 



24 VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 

The attention of the Government was not yet roused to the 
formidable extent of his claim, and consequently no official 
forms were omitted in the courteous expressions of the minis- 
terial communications. 

It is evident that if at this period the Royal charters had 
conferred nothing more than titles of nobility and peerage, 
and if the Earl of Stirling had limited his views to obtaining 
the Government recognition of his genealogy and descent, as 
well as his title of Earl and peer of Scotland, he would have 
met with no obstacles, and his rights, already acknowledged by 
the courts, the nobihty, and by public opinion, would never 
have been disputed. 

But all was going to change, and did change, as soon as the 
Earl, on the 21st of November, 1832, in a petition to the King 
preferred his claim for the payment of a sum of ten thousand 
pounds with interest, which had been running on for two centu- 
ries, and raised the amount to the sum of ■J'l 10,000 and upwards, 
due upon the security of a royal bond and letters patent of Charles 
1st to the first Earl. This petition was delivered to Viscount 
Melbourne by Mr. Burn, the solicitor and agent of Lord Stir- 
ling. The minister at first declined to present the petition to 
his Majesty, alleging that Alexander Alexander, esq., claiming 
to be Earl of Stirling, was not acknowledged by the House of 
Lords. 

But after a correspondence in which the condition of the peti- 
tioner as a peer was maintained with success by his professional 
advisers, the minister yielded the point; and in a letter addres- 
sed to Mr. Burn by Lord Melbourne's directions, we read: " I 
am directed by Viscount Melbourne to acknowledge the re- 
ceipt of your letter of the 24th ultimo, in which you state that 
your client has already petitioned the King in council, viz., the 
29th August, 1831, on the occasion of the coronation, and on 
the next day had a reply from the council office under signa- 
ture of C. Greville, by direction of the Lords of the committee 
of the council, and addressed to his Lordship as Earl of Stir- 



VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 25 

ling. The accuracy of this statement having been ascertained, 
Lord Melbourne has laid the petition of your client, which ac- 
companied your letter of the 23d of November last, praying 
the payment of certain moneys, which he states to be due him 
as the heir of his great-great-great-grandfather, the Viscount 
Stirling, under letters patent of his late Majesty, King Charles 
the First, before the King, and the petition is now referred to 
the consideration of the Lords of the Treasury, to whom all 
farther application on this subject must be addressed. 
"^1 am, sir, your obedient servant, 

J. M. PHILLIPS." 
"J. I. Burn, esq." 

A correspondence was without delay established between 
the Earl of Stirling and the Lords Commissioners of the Treas- 
ury; we give a verbatim copy of the first answer which was 
addressed to the claimant. 

''My Lord: I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners 
of his Majesty's treasury to acquaint your Lordship, in answer 
to your letterofI5th ultimo, that Government cannot entertain 
any claim of the nature preferred by you, after a period of two 
hundred years. 

"I am, my Lord, 

"Your Lordship's most obedient servant, 
(Signed) J. STEWARD." 

'■'■Treasury chambers, 2^th March, 1833. 
"The Earl of Stirling." 

The Lords of the Treasury, it will be seen, saw but one ob- 
jection to make to the demand of Lord Stirling, that of pre- 
scription. Letters upon the same subject, addressed to Lord 
Stirling by his title, were received from Mr. Secretary Stanly, 
now Lord Derby. Indeed, Lord Stirling has in his possession 
letters from all the Prime Ministers of England since 1831, re- 
cognising his title and treating him as the Earl of Stirling. 
With Lord John Russell the correspondence runs down to the 
recent date of 1848, and the Earl is always addressed by the 
4 



^ 



26 VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 

Premier as Earl of Stirling. Now it is impossible that titles not 
really belonging to the Earl of Stirling could have been given 
to him with such general unanimity, but through the power 
of a fact recognised by public opinion as an incontestible 
truth. 

Since the period of 1833, at which time no judicial or offi- 
cial sanction seemed wanting to sustain him in his rank, or to 
empower him to assert effectively his rights, Lord Stirling has 
been constantly accumulating new evidence in support of his 
rights of inheritance. Since the judgments in his favor already 
mentioned, no legal motive, no plausible pretext, no sudden 
doubts, have arisen to impugn them. Why, then, is he not 
at this moment in the full and undisturbed enjoyment of the 
honors and estates of his family ? Theanswer is obvious. The 
denial of rights, vice-regal as they are, extending over a terri- 
tory broader than Great Britain and France united, affecting 
the political relations of more than two millions of subjects, 
and covering the most valuable fisheries in the world, became 
a matter oi political necessity to the British Government. This 
is a necessity which with that Government has in all times 
overridden all law and trampled on all individual rights. The 
majesty of justice bows before it. The press is silent at its bid- 
ding, servile officials are ready to execute its orders, and timid 
courts to pronounce its judgments. 

We can only wonder that Lord Stirling, having these truly 
formidable rights, was not crushed at his first appearance to as- 
sert them. The Government had not yet reflected upon the 
consequences of their recognitions. We have seen that the 
petition addressed by Lord Stirling to the King for the payment 
of <J'10,000, due to him as the heir of his ancestor, the first 
Earl, had roused the ministers of state. Other proceedings of 
Lord Stirling excited still more alarm. In 1832, in conse- 
quence of certain proceedings in Parliament for the formation 
of land companies in the British American provinces, Lord 
Stirling presented a petition to Parliament to stop such proceed- 
ings, as interfering with his rights. This petition was ordered 



VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 27 

to be printed. A short time previously to tliis he had filed a 
bill in chancery against the lessees of the company called the 
Nova Scotia Mining- Company, who had become possessed, 
under modern grants by Parliament to the Duke of York, of 
portions of the Nova Scotia estates. The bill stated fully the 
several rights and powers of Lord Stirling to call upon the par- 
ties to account to him for the proceeds of their mining and col- 
liery operations, and to show by what title they held possession 
of the property. Lord Stirling thus publicly asserted his rights 
to the Nova Scotia estates, and distinctly put his own rights in 
issue. The Crown was made a party to this suit. There was 
a stronger reason than usual in this case for the accustomed de- 
lays in chancery, and the suit is still pending. These acts of 
Lord Stirling fully called the attention of the ministers to the 
extent of the charters of donation. The case created the great- 
est anxiety in the cabinet, and several honorable members of 
the Government were disposed to meet the case with fairness, 
and compromise with Lord Stirhng for the surrender of his 
rights. 

At this time, in 1833, great discontent prevailed in the Can- 
adas. Addresses to the Canadians and Nova Scotians, impru- 
dently prepared by Lord Stirling's agents, were extensively 
circulated in the colonies. The Government, on the one hand, 
were fearful of increasing the discontent in the colonies by com- 
promising with Lord Stirling, as important political rights and 
privileges were secured to the colonists by the charters. On 
the other hand, they were unwilling that those rights and 
privileges should accrue to the colonists through the acknow- 
ledgment of Lord Stirling's rights by the Government. It was 
therefore resolved to hang up the case by fictitious suits, and 
give the impression that Lord Stirling's rights had not been ju- 
dicially established. 

The Government was incited to this course by other influ- 
ences. Soon after Lord Stirling appeared in Scotland, all the 
wealthy members of the collateral branches of the family, and 



ZO VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 

Others in possession of the English and Scotch estates, which 
were endangered by his appearance, met together to consider 
the expediency of uniting with him for the purpose of compro- 
mise. On calculating the chances of his success with a limited 
fortune, against powerful opposition, sustained by ample means, 
it was decided to oppose him. All the influence of these par- 
ties was brought to bear upon the Government, and immense 
sums were afterwards pledged by them to the law agents of the 
Crown on condition that they should defeat Lord Stirling's 
titles to his lands and honors. 

In May, 1833, an action at the suit of the officers of state for 
Scotland was brought in the Scottish courts for the purpose of 
challenging and reducing Lord Stirling's services as heir of the 
first Earl. And here we may observe, that it never has been 
denied by the Government that the real heir to the first Earl of 
Stirling is entitled to the vast possessions in America granted 
by the charters. The existence of the charters could not be 
denied. The claim of prescription has been found untenable. 
They could only justify themselves by denying the heirship. 
This appears from all the documents and correspondence in 
Lord Stirling's possession, and is confirmed by a letter of the 
recent date of 1846, addressed to the present Earl by his accom- 
plished law agent, Mr. Lockhart. He says: 

^'It has never been seriously made a question whether your 
Lordship has a right to the dommium utile of Canada, all ex- 
cepting such portions of it as were the subject of grants by the 
first Earl." 

We assert, without fear of contradiction, that the suit of the 
officers of state to reduce Lord Stirling's services was brought 
in palpable violation of law. The officers of state, represent- 
ing the Crown, had no right to sue. It is a principle of the 
law of Scotland, that ''the Crown refuses no vassal." The 
attempt of the Crown to reduce the services is a violation of 
that principle. It is established by the Scotch law that a party 
who has no title to oppose a service during its progress, is not 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 29 

entitled to pursue a reduction of it after it has been retoured. 
It is, further, a well established rule, that no party can chal- 
lenge a service unless he has a competing brieve claiming to 
be served in the same character to the same ancestor. No one 
who does not claim to be entitled to be served as heir, can chal- 
lenge a service, or bring an action for its reduction. It is clear 
that the Crown, not being a competing heir in blood, wanted 
the legal title to compete. Finally, the Crown had renounced 
all right to interfere with Lord Stirling by clauses of the royal 
charters, such as follow: 

'■'■Which lands and privileges, jurisdiction^ ^'c, specially 
and generally ahov ".mentioned^ together loith all right, title, 
&f'c., which we, or our predecessors or successors have had, or 
any way can have, claim, or pretend thereto, 6j'c. We, with 
advice foresaid, ^'c, of neio, give, grant, and dispone to the 
foresaid Sir William Alexander , and his heirs and assignees, 
heritably for ever; rexouncing and exonerating the 

SAME SI31PLICITER WITH ALL ACTION AND INSTANCE HERE- 
TOFORE competent TO AND IN FAVOUR OF THE SAID SiR 

William Alexander and his heirs and assignees, as 
v-ellfor non-payment of the duties contained in their origiyial 
infeftments, as for non-performance of due homage, conform 
thereto, or for non-fulfilment of any point of the said, original 
infeftment, or for commission of any fault or deed of omis- 
sion or commissiofi prejudicial thereto; and whereby the said 
original infeftment may in any way be lawfully impugned 
or called in question, for ever acquitting and remitting 

THE same SIMPLICITER WITH ALL TITLE, ACTION, INSTANCE, 
AND INTEREST, HERETOFORE COMPETENT, OR THAT MAY BE 
COMPETENT TO US, AND OUR HEIRS AND SUCCESSORS, RE- 
NOUNCING THE SA3IE SIMPLICITER, JURE LITE ET CAUSA CUTM 

FACTO DE NON PETENDO, and loith Supplement of all defects, 
as well not named as named, which we will to be held, as 
expressed in this our present charter. To be holden in free 



30 VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 

blench farm, as said is, and dispensins^ with non-entry, when- 
soever it shall happen in manner foresaid.''^ 

Notwithstanding the morally impregnable position upon 
these points of law and fact, and the proofs of his descent, the 
court of session decided to reduce the services. Lord Stirling 
immediately appealed to the House of Lords. The case came 
on for hearing in the House of Lords on the first of March, 
1845. * After it had been argued by Lord Stirling's leading 
counsel, who maintained — 1st, that the Crown had no right 
to bring the action of reduction; 2ndly, that the pedigree was 
established; 3rdly, that the case was taken up without hearing 
during Lord Stirling's absence on the continent; 4thly, that 
extraordinary proceedings had been adopted to prevent a fair 
trial of the whole case; Lord Brougham, in the presence of 
three ex-chancellors, none of whom dissented, distinctly stated, 
that the court of session ^'had no right to find that Lord Stir- 
ling was not the lawful and nearest heir in general and special 
of the first Earl," that ''the Crown had no right to bring the 
action," and that "Lord Stirhng had a good defence on that 
head," and that the acts of the court were arbitrary and op- 
pressive. On proceeding with the case, it was found that one 
of the interlocutors or judgments had been omitted in the 
appeal, and the hearing of the cause was postponed for the 
purpose of having the omission corrected. One great object of 
Lord Stirling's enemies, viz., "^o make a run upon his re- 
sources,^'' (quoting their own words,) had by this time been 
effected. The enormous expenses of prosecuting the case be- 
fore the House of Lords prevented Lord Stirling from proceed- 
ing with his appeal. The Government were willing enough 
to have the decision delayed, and the case is still pending 
under the title which is in itself a sufficient recognition of Lord 
Stirling's present rank. 



"Alexander Alexander, Earl of Stirling, appellant, 

and 

The Officers of State for Scotland, respondents 



nt,'^ 



I VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 31 

with every prospect of a favorable termination^ when the means 
for prosecuting the case are provided. The facts in relation to 
these proceedings have been obtained from the printed records 
of the case, and the original notes and letters of the highly 
respectable Scotchand English counsel, which have been care- 
fully examined for this purpose. 

We do not propose in this rapid sketch to detail all tl^e arbi- 
trary acts of the officers of State, and the Scotch courts, under 
the pressure of the political necessity to which we have alluded; 
the violation of the law, usage, and practice of centuries; the 
rejection of evidence; the denial of the means of legal authen- 
tication; the arbitrary and illegal removal of an undecided case 
from a civil to a criminal court, the more effectually lo prevent 
proof being brought; and, finally, the arbitrary decision of a 
case against Lord Stirling without giving him a hearing, acts 
which Lord Brougham denounced as unprecedented in a 
British court of justice. Of all these we have the proofs, and 
are prepared to produce them when the occasion demands. 
We shall not either speak at length of the infamous trial of 
Lord Stirling on the charge of forging documents, none of 
which had been used in the services, of which charge he was 
triumphantly acquitted by the jury without leaving their seats 
upon hearing the Crown case alone, amidst the applauding 
shouts of the people; who afterwards, in their exultation, took 
the horses from the Earl's carriage, and insisted on drawing 
him to his house in triumph. 

These proceedings will not surprise those who are familiar 
with English history. Notwithstanding the acknowledged pu- 
rity of the administration of justice in Great Britain between 
individuals, yet, in cases of great political emergency, where the 
Government has felt that vital interests either of jurisdiction 
or territory were involved, the whole weight of official power 
has been brought to bear upon the determination of courts and 
juries. Thus we have seen at the instance of Government the 
well settled principles of the common law disregarded in the 
cases of Hampden, Russell, and Sydney; juries packed and 



32 VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 

perjured; and informers employed in the cases of Orr and 
Fennetrey, and even the counterfeiting of the Government 
paper money of France sustained and sanctioned by the high 
authorities of the reahn as a legitimate means of overthrowing 
the finances of a rival power. Involving, then, as did the case 
of Lord Stirling, rights political and territorial of transcendent 
value, he might well have anticipated that the whole power of 
the Government by means equally unjust would be wielded, 
as they were, for his destruction. Here^ however, the press, 
uninfluenced by Governmental power, will proclaim the truth, 
and insure to him the sympathy and support of generous and 
enlightened men in England and America. 

It is sufficient for us on reviewing these proceedings to say, 
that Lord Stirhng's legal position is not yet affected. He is 
still Earl of Stirling, and invested with all the rights and 
estates of his ancestor in America. He is irt present possession, 
and until the final decision of the House of Lords shall right- 
fully and legally reduce his services, which cannot be done as 
the law stands, all grants and conveyances of estates, and what 
may be more important, of rights and privileges, must remain 
valid . 

We will now proceed to give a statement of the property, 
rights of action, and privileges in the British Provinces, the 
United States, and Great Britain, which may be made availa- 
ble in whole or in part to Lord Stirling or his assignees by 
legal proceedings sustained by sufficient means, or by compro- 
mise. They are as follows: 

L All the public or unoccupied lands in Nova Scotia, New 
Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island, all which provinces, 
as will be seen by the charter of Novo damns of 1625, are 
included within the limits of Nova Scotia, ^Hogether with all 
mines, as well royal, of gold and silver, as other mines of iron, 
lead, copper, tin, brass, and other minerals whatsoever." 

Title. — Original charter of Nova Scotia of 10th September, 
1621. The same Reg. Mag. Sig., B. 50, No. 36. 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 33 

Charter of Novo damns of 12th July, 1625, Reg. Mag. Sig., 
B. 51, No. 23. 

Also seisia of Nova Scotia, dated 8th July, 1831; recorded 
Gen'l Reg'r of Seisins, vol. 1646, fol. 102. 

II. All the public and unoccupied lands of the whole Pro- 
vince of Canada amounts to at least ten millions of acres of 
good improvable lands, together with all the mines and miner- 
als as in the Nova Scotia grant, embracing the valuable copper 
mines on the Canadian side of Lake Superior. 

Title.— Charter of Canada, February 2d, 1628; Py.eg. Mag. 
Sig., B. 52, No. 110. Confirmed by act of Parliament. 
Seisin, 8th July, 1831, Gen'l Reg'r of Seisins, vol. 1646, 
fol. 111. 

III. The public lands in the northern parts of Wisconsin 
and Michigan, including all the copper mines of Lake Su- 
perior. These lands are covered by the Canada charter, as 
follows: ^^We give and grant to the foresaid Sir William and 
his foresaids fifty leagues of bounds on both sides of the fore- 
said river of Canada, (now called St. Lawrence,) from said 
mouth and entrance to the said head fountain and source 
thereof, also on both sides of said other rivers flowing into the 
same; as also on both sides of the said lakes, arms of the sea, or 
waters, through which any of the said rivers have their source, 
or in which they terminate." 

The claim to these lands will be the subject of compromise 
with the United States and the various mining companies, 
none of which have had possession for twenty years. 

Title, charter of Canada. 

IV. The public lands owned, or claimed to be owned by 
the States of Maine and Massachusetts, within the territory of 
the State of Maine, including the most valuable timber lands 
of the State. The State of Massachusetts was offered with- 
in a year over .$600,000 for her interest in these lands. These 
lands are covered by the charter of Canada. They are also 

5 



34 VINDr CATION OP LORD STIRLING. 

included in a patent from the Plymouth company, dated April 
22d, 1835. 

A portion of territory south of the River St. Croix was in- 
cluded in the original patent to the Plymouth company of 1621. 
This conflicted with the grant of the Lordship of Canada to 
Lord Stirling. The company was commanded to make over 
that tract to the Earl of Stirhng, which conveyance would ac- 
cresce to and be corroborated by his Majesty's previous grant 
of the Lordship of Canada. Accordingly the Plymouth com- 
pany, corporation or council of New England, by and with the 
consent, direction, appointment, &/C., of King Charles, issued 
letters patent to William Earl of Stirling, his heirs and assigns, 
dated 22d April, 1635, ''for a tract of the Maine land of New 
England, beginning at St. Croix, and from thence extending 
along the sea coast to Pemaquid and the River Kennebeck," to 
which was added the island of Long Island with all the islands 
thereto adjacent. Large tracts of land on Long Island are 
held under this title, and the deeds from the first Earl of Stir- 
ling's agent are found on the ancient records of the island. 

V. Claim to a strip of country three hundred miles broad, 
extending from the head waters of Lake Superior to California, 
and to the territory of California. The words of the charter 
of Canada are: "And in like manner we have given and gran- 
ted, and by our present charter, give and grant, to the foresaid 
Sir William Alexander, and his foresaids, all and whole the 
bounds and passages, as well in waters as on land, from the 
foresaid head, fountain and source of the river Canada, 
wheresoever it is, or from whatsoever lake it flows down to 
the aforesaid Gulf of California, whatsoever the distance shall 
be found to be, with fifty leagues altogether, on both sides of 
the said passage, before the said head of the river Canada, 
and Gulf of California; and likewise all and sundry islands 
lying within the said Gulf of California; as also and whole, 
the lands and bounds adjacent to the said Gulf on the west 
and south, whether they be found a part of the Continent or 
main land, or an island as it is thought they are, which is 



VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 35 

commonly called and distinguished by the name of Califor- 
nia." 

It may be doubted whether the English ever had a title to 
this country by discovery. But it has been claimed by them 
from the discovery of Sir Francis Drake, from whom San 
Francisco was named. As the United States does not sell 
any of the public lands in California, many persons would 
without doubt be glad to avail themselves of a title, such as it 
is, from Lord Stirling. 

IV". Claim for <i''10,000 against the British Government 
with interest thereon, granted to the first Earl of Stirling by 
letters patent from Charles I, in 1632, as a compensation for 
relinquishing Port Royal at the King's command. The patent 
is not denied by the British Government, nor is payment aver- 
red. They plead prescription in defiance of the legal maxim, 
nullum tempus occurrit regi. 

VII. Proceeds of the mines of the Nova Scotia mining com- 
pany, now in chancery in England, the same having been en- 
joined by the Earl of Stirling. This suit is still pending. 
The amount in court cannot now be precisely stated, but it 
exceeds =^300,000, The sums included in the two last claims 
amounting to over two millions dollars, would be most readily 
available for payment to Lord Stirling in case of a compromise 
with the British Government. 

VIII. Right to the fisheries on all the coasts of Canada, No- 
va Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island. 

This extraordinary right, so important at this juncture to the 
United States in a political point of view, and to the people of 
the north as a means by which they may recover their ancient 
and well earned privileges, lost to them by diplomatic blun- 
dering in 1818, demands a somewhat extended notice. 

It is well known that by the treaty of peace between the 
United States and Great Britain in 1783, the people of the 
United States secured from the British Government, so far as 
they had the power to dispose of it, the right to catch fish on 



36 VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 

the Grand Bank, the Bank of Newfoundland, in the Gulf of 
St. Lawrence, and in all other places in the sea where the in- 
habitants of both countries used at any time to fish. 

By the convention of 1818 the United States, after obtain- 
ing from Great Britain the concession of the right of fishing on 
certain coasts of Newfoundland , on the shores of the Magda- 
len islands, and the southern coast of Labrador, renounced for- 
ever the liberty of fishing within three miles of any other part 
of the British coasts in ATnerica, or of curing or drying fish 
on them. The construction recently given to this treaty by 
the law officers of the Crown is, that these three miles are to 
be measured from headland to headland. By this treaty and 
its late construction our vessels are excluded from the best fish- 
ing grounds, particularly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, where 
the greater number of our vessels resort. Our fishermen are 
shut out from the early spring and fall fisheries, precisely those 
of the greatest value and most easily prosecuted. To the mack- 
erel fishermen especially this restriction is ruinous, as they are 
not allowed to follow the fish within three miles of the shore, 
within which limits the largest schools are generally found. 
The loss to the fall fisheries of Massachusetts alone, in conse- 
quence of the enforcement of these restrictions by the British 
fleet, last year, was estimated by official returns at over one 
million of dollars. 

Amidst all the discussions of this question in the Senate and 
by the press, no ingenuity or political sagacity have suggested 
any mode of reclaiming these rights so foolishly and ignorantly 
surrendered, except by a hostile resumption, without any title 
or pretext to justify us to the world, or by negotiations which 
could hardly be effected without humiliating concessions to 
Great Britain. But by the treaty of 1818 we renounced only 
the rights of fishing which we then claimed. As between our- 
selves only and Great Britain, we acknowledged that her title 
was best. We did not bind ourselves to defend that title against 
others, or not to purchase the rights in question of any party 
who might be found to have a better legal title. 



VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 37 

Independently of the title founded on ancient charters and 
treaties, the natural right to the fisheries on all the northern 
coasts and islands belongs exclusively to the people of the 
United States, and more particularly the people of Xevr Eng- 
land. It is not only theirs by prescription, but these fishing 
grounds were won from the French, not by the soldiers of the 
British Crown, or the people of the Provinces, which were 
then hardly inhabited, but by New England blood and trea- 
sure. Our great American historian informs as that the old 
French wars on our northern continent "were prosecuted mainly 
to secure for the benefit of the French Crown the American 
fisheries, which were deemed indispensable for the supply of 
treasure and- the ramntenance of the navy of France. For 
this purpose, for nearly a hundred years, X ew England homes 
were desolated by Indian wars. The final blow v>-hich pros- 
trated French power upon our seas, the capture of LouLsburgh, 
commanding as it did the waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 
and the coasts of Is'ova Scotia and JS^ewfoundland, was struck 
by the son of a Xew Hampshire fisherman, at the head of 
New England fishermen and yeomen. These traditions are 
still cherished by the firesides of the North, and it is most 
mortifying and irritating to the people to see their ancient 
fishing grounds, won by their fathers' blood, guarded by a 
British fleet, and to read the recent laws of a petty province, 
providing that if any American vessel ■■ shall have been found 
fishing, or preparing to fish, within three miles of the coasts 
and harbors, such vessel or boat, and the cargo, shall be for- 
feited." It cannot therefore be doubted that the pubhc senti- 
ment of the whole American people will sustain the Govern- 
ment of the United States, or its citizens, in defending any 
legal liiie which will enforce or give additional effect to their 
natural rights. 

Now it is most extraordinary that the charters of Nova 
Scotia and Canada give to Lord .Stirling, his heirs and assigns, 
the complete right of fishing within six leagues of the shore 



38 VINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 

on precisely the coasts which we have relinquished j an extent 
of coast of over three thousand miles in length. The charter 
of Nova Scotia, after giving" the boundaries of (he country 
granted, including New Brunswick, with remarkable accu- 
racy, proceeds in these words: " Including and comprehend- 
ing within the said coasts and their circumference, from sea 
to sea, all the continents, with rivers, brooks, bays, shores, 
islands, or seas lying near or within six leagues of any part of 
the same, on the west, north, or east side of the coasts; and 
from the south-east, where lies Cape Breton, and the south 
part of the same, where is Cape Sable, all the seas and islands 
southward within forty leagues of the said coasts thereof," 
&c. And the charter proceeds to grant to Sir William Alex- 
ander, his heirs or assigns, among other things, all ^'marshes, 
lakes, waters, fisheries, as well in salt water as in 
FRESH, of royal fishes, as of others," (fee, {" marrcssiis 
lacubus aquis piscationibus tarn in aqua salsa quam recenti 
tarn regalium piscium quam aliorum.''^) The charter 
also refers to undertakings which the grantee may make with 
"divers of our subjects and others who probably shall enter 
itito contracts with him and his heirs, assignees, or deputies 
for lands, fisheries," &c. 

If Lord Stirling is heir of Sir William Alexander, as he is 
judicially estabhshed to be, the title to the fisheries is in him, 
and not in the British Government, or in the people of the 
British Provinces. He has the undoubted power of assigning 
and transferring this right to American citizens, or of granting 
licenses to American fishermen. And American citizens or 
fishermen, if disturbed in the right thus acquired, may de- 
mand the protection of the Government of the United States, 
which will be bound to see if the title is good, and, if so, to 
defend it. 

Lord Stirling is now in this country, fortified with all the mu- 
niments of his honors and estates. He comes here, not only 
with all the documents necessary to prove the statements in the 



VINDICATION OP LORD STIRLING. 39 

preceding pages, but with testimonials from the highest sources 
in England and France, as to his personal character, which 
give the strongest moral confirmation of the righteous fulness 
of his cause. Amidst all the opposition he has encountered, 
the utmost malevolence of his enemies has never been able to 
throw a doubt upon his personal honor and integrity. Even 
the ministers, who were interested to defeat him, acknowledg- 
ed that they '^knew Lord Stirling was an honorable man," 
His friends in his adversity rallied round him with such letters 
as the following from Lieut. Gen. D'Aguilar, lately commander 
in chief of the British forces in China, and now governor of Ports- 
mouth, addressed to Lord Stanly, now Lord Derby: 

* * "I should do violence to the best feehngs of ray heart 
if I did not say that a more conscientious, moderate minded, 
honorable man than the Earl of Stirling does not exist, in my 
estimation. I have known him from his earliest years, and 
had the happiness of passing some of the happiest days of my 
youth in the society of his family, than which none could be 
more respectable or more respected. I believe Lord Stirling 
to be incapable of desiring any thing but the barest justice, and 
know myself incapable of asking more." # # * 

Thus sustained. Lord Stirling comes among a people of large 
ideas, who will not be astounded at the extent of his rights, or 
discouraged at the opposition by a Government which they have 
been educated to believe does not scruple at the means by which 
it defends the possessions within its grasp. While he is deter- 
mined to oppose none of the vested prescriptive rights of indi- 
viduals, and is ready to make the most favorable arrangement 
with the States whose titles to land in this country may conflict 
with his own, he is prepared to give most liberal grants to those 
who will aid him in recovering all the ancient estates of his 
famil}^ in the British Provinces. And to give the most striking 
proof of his good will to the people of the United States, and 
at the same time to put at issue before the world the question 
of his rights, he is ready at once to grant to American citizens 



40 TINDICATION OF LORD STIRLING. 

licenses to fish on all the coasts of Canada, Nova Scotia, New 
Brunswick, and Prince Edward's Island. 



The writer of the preceding pages has prepared this state- 
ment after a most attentive examination of original and authen- 
tic documents. Nothing has been stated that these documents 
will not prove. He has deemed it unnecessary to weary the 
reader by presenting cumulative evidence in support of the po- 
sitions above maintained, that Lord Stirling's rights have been 
judicially established and officially recognised, and that the 
want of his present enjoyment of them is due, not to any doubt 
as to his heirship and identity, or the validity and effect of the 
charters, but to the political consequences involved in reinstat- 
ing him in the ancient possessions of his family. Numerous 
letters, confirmatory of the views above presented, from noble- 
men of rank in Great Britain, and opinions of eminent counsel 
in London and Edinburgh, and of learned historians and ad- 
vocates in France which might have been referred to, have not 
been cited. It is beheved that the American public will be sa- 
tisfied with a reference to a single authority, whose weight is 
every where acknowledged in this country. In the course of 
the examination of this case the writer was requested by Lord 
Stirling to call upon the Hon. Robert J. Walker, late Secre- 
tary of the Treasury, and learn from him directly the views 
which he had expressed on this subject. The matter having 
been accordingly mentioned by the writer to Mr. Walker, he 
stated that, prior to his departure for Europe he had, at the re- 
quest of Lord Stirling, examined the case, and although his 
multiplied engagements prevented his having been profession- 
ally employed as counsel as Lord Stirhng desired, he (Mr. 
Walker) entertained an undoubted conviction, which was con- 
firmed by conversation relative to the case with several distin- 
guished persons during Mr, Walker's late visit to England and 
Scotland, of the heirship , identity, and legal rights of Lord 
Stirling. 



APPENDIX 



Opinion of A. H. Lawrence, Esq., of Washingto?i, D. C, 
Counsellor at Law. 

Bethlehem, Pa., June 23, 1853. 

John L. Hayes, Esa. 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Sir: I have received yours of the 21st inst. in respect 
to the case of Lord Stirling. I had previously given to the 
legal questions a pretty thorough examination, and am con- 
vinced that the claims of the present Earl are legally of the 
strongest character. But as the papers are so voluminous, and 
the authorities so numerous, it would require both time and 
space to write out an opinion which would do justice either to 
one's self or the case, I have thought best merely to hint (for 
the present) at the points which present themselves on a more 
careful view. 

As to the authenticity of the grants to the original Earl of 
Stirling, I suppose there can be no rational doubt. They are 
matters of undoubted history. 

The questions, then, as i conceive, are these: 1st. Is the 
present claimant of the title and estate the real heir, lineally 
descended from the original grantee? 2d. If so, have his 
rights been lost by neghgence or want of possession ? There 
are some subordinate questions embraced in these to which I 
shall presently" allude ; but I think it may be safely assumed 
that if the grants were genuine, and the present claimant is 
the heir of the original grantee, and that he has not lost his 
rights by laches, that then he has a subsisting legal title to all 
the lands included in the grants which have not been disposed 
of by the grantee or his heirs. 

1st. Is the present clamiant the right heir of the original 
grantee? It appears from the papers that the present claimant 
obtained two verdicts of juries upon the question of his heir- 
ship to that original grantee. Lord Stirling, These verdicts 
were given by juries summoned according to the Scottish law. 
In a proceeding called (I think) the "service of an heir," a 
jurisdiction particularly and especially provided for the trial of 
the fact of heirship, where any question is made as to the 
6 



42 APPENDIX. 

heirship of any one claiming to be heir of another. In 
Erskine's Institutes, and in Bell's Scotch Law Dictionary, 
this proceeding is particularly described ; and from these books 
it will be seen that it is a special jurisdiction, for the trial of 
that particular issue. Now the law, I think, is well settled, 
that when a court, having jurisdiction, had pronounced upon 
the status of an individual, it is conclusive as to such status 
everywhere and alwa5^s. It is like a judgment in rem in 
admiralty; or a judgment as to the validity of a marriage, or 
the legitivnacy of a child, in the ecclesiastical courts, (where 
th^y have jurisdiction.) Indeed, it don't differ from the effect 
of any other judgment, for all judgments of competent courts 
are conclusive as to the particular subject matter in con- 
troversy; and in these cases the subject matter is the status, 
the validity of the marriage or the legitimacy of the child. I 
think this doctrine is laid down in the Duchess of Kingston's 
case, in the State trials, 20lh volume, I believe. [See Sto. Conf. 
Laws, Foreign Judgments.] Of course it will be necessary 
for the present claimant to show in this country that he is the 
person who obtained those verdicts ; and upon that the ques- 
tion of his heirship must be taken as established. 

2d. As to Lord Stirling having lost his rights by laches. In 
the first place, tiie grants themselves, so far as the British 
Crown is concerned, have, by every possible variety of phra- 
seology, attempted to exclude every conclusion of fact or of 
law against the gra^ntee fro?n not taking possessio?i; so that 
the British Government at least would be stopped from set- 
ting up this objection. The country was looked upon in the 
grants, as it was in reality, as a wilderness, of which no use 
could be made and no actual possession taken. Then as to 
the lands in Maine. We take for granted that the State will 
relinquish to Lord Stirling any of his lands which she holds, 
without insisting upon her immunity from being sued, if she 
is satisfied that, in point of law, the lands belong to Lord 
Stirling. As to these lands* the statute of limitations of the 
State would be no bar; because, if Lord Stirling could sue the 
State, he was beyond seas, and excepted frorn the statute. 
If he could not sue the State, then he was not within the 
statute, because he had no right of action accrued, which is 
the point from which statutes of limitation run. 

But, again, suppose that a title to these lands could have 
been acquired by adverse possession, still the fisheries would 
not go as parcel of that possession. The fisheries were 
granted not as appurtenant to the lands, but as a special per- 
sonal privilege ; and if they had been granted as appurtenant 
to the lands, it was a special appurtenance to the lands made 



APPENDIX. 43 

SO by grant and not by force of law, and I think could not be 
acquired by mere adverse possession of the lands. 

Upon the whole, 1 am of opinion that the title of the pre- 
sent claimant is sound in law, and that he ought to recover 
the lands. I have written these hints hastily and informally, 
though I have bestowed a good deal of labor in the examina- 
tion. 

Very respectfully, 

Your ob't servant. 
Signed, A. H. LAWRENCE. 



[translation.] 
INSTRUMENT OF SEISIN 

IN FAVOR OF 

ALEXANDER, EARL OF STIRLING AND DOVAN, 

OF THE LORDSHIP AND BARONY OF NOVA SCOTIA IN AMERICA, 
COMPREHENDING THE LANDS, ISLANDS, AND OTHERS, AFTER 
MENTIONED. 

IN THE NAME OF GOD, Amen. Be it known to all men by this per- 
sent public instrument, That on the 8th day of July, in the year of our Lord 
1831, and of the reign of our sovereign lord, William the Fourth, by the grace 
of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender 
of the Faith, the second year, In presence of me, notary public, clerk of the 
sheriffdom of Edinburgh, and the witnesses subscribing, appeared personally 
Ephraim Lockhart, writer to his Majesty's signet, attorney for and in name of 
the Right Honorable Alexander Earl of Stirling and Dovan, great-great-great 
grandson of the deceased Sir William Alexander of Menstrie, Knight, the first 
Earl of Stirling, whose power of attorney was sufficiently known to me, the 
undersigned notary-public ; and passed with us and with Adam Duff, Esquire, 
advocate, Sheriff-depute of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, specially constituted 
by the precept of seisin under inserted, to the Castle of Edinburgh, where by 
the said precept seisin is to be taken for all and whole the country and others 
under mentioned, having and holding in his hands the preempt of seisin under 
inserted, directed forth of our sovereign lord the King's chancery in favor of 
the said Alexander Earl of Stirling and Dovan, as nearest and lawful heir 
served and retoured to the said William Earl of Stirling, his great-great-great 
grandfather, for giving seisin to him of all and sundry the lands and others 
after mentioned, contained in the said precept of seisin under inserted ; which 
precept of seisin the foresaid attorney, in the name of the aforesaid Alexander 
Earl of Stirling and Dovan, exhibited and presented to the said Adam Duff, 
Sheriff aforesaid, and desired him to proceed to the execution of the said pre- 
cept of seisin, agreeably to the tenor thereof; which desire the said sheriff 
finding to be just and reasonable, he received the said precept of seisin into his 
hands, and delivered it to me, the undersigned notary-public, to be read, pub- 
lished and explained, in the common speech, to the witnesses present ; which 
I did, and of which precept of seisin the tfenor follows in these words : 

" WILLIAM THE Fourth, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of 
' Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, to the Sheriff of 
' Edinburgh and his Bailies, Greeting. Forasmuch as it is found, by an inquest 
' made by our command, by George Tait, Esquire, Sheriff-substitute of the 
' sheriffdom of Edinburgh, as sheriff for that effect, specially constituted, in 
' virtue of a commission under the testimonial of the seal, therein specified, and 
' retoured to our chancery, That the deceased Sir William Alexander of Men- 
' strie. Knight, the first Earl of Stirling, great-great-great grandfather of the 
' Right Honorable Alexander Earl of Stirling and Dovan, Viscount 6f Stirling 
'and Canada, Lord Alexander of Tullibodie, &c., bearer hereof, died at the 
' faith and peace of the King, last vest and seised as of fee in all and sundry the 
' lands, continents and islands situate and lying in America, within the head or 
' cape commonly called Cap de Sable, lying near the latitude of forty-three de- 
' grees north fiom the equinoctial line, or thereabouts, from which cape towards 
' the sea-coast verging to the west, to the naval station of St. Mary, commonly 
' called St. Mary's Bay, and thereafter northwards by a straight line passing 



APPE^'DIx. 45 

' the inlet or mouth of thai great naral Elation which runs out into the eastern 
tract of land between the countries of the Suriqnois and Stechemines, to the 
rirer commonly called of St. Croix, and to the farthest source or fonntain 
head thereof on the western part, which nrst unites itself wiih the foresaid 
liTer, whence, by an imaginary straight line, conceired to proceed oTerland, 
or run northward's, to the nearest naral station, river or sotirce discharging 
itself into the great river of Canada, and from it proceeding eastwards by 
the coasts of the said river of Canada to the river, naval station, port or 
shore commonly known and ealled by the name of Gathepe or Gaspe, and 
thereafter towards the southeast to the islands called Bacalaos, or Cape 
Breton, leaving the said islands on the right, and the gulf of the said great 
river of Canada, oi gxeai naval station, and the lands of Xewfoundland, with 
the islands belonging to these lands, on the left, and thereafter to the head or 
ea.p& of Cape Breton foresaid, lying near the latitude of forty-nve degrees or 
thereabouts, and from the said cape of Cape Breton towards the south-west, to 
the foresaid Cap de Sable, where the perambulation began, including and com- 
prehending within the said coasts, and their circumference from sea to sea, all 
the lands and continents, with the rivers, broois, bays, shores, islands or seas, 
lying near or within six leaau es of any part of the same, on the western, north- 
em, or eastern sides of the coasts, and predncts thereof, and on the south-east, 
(where lies Cape Breton.) and on the southern part of the same, (where is Cap 
de Sable.) all the seas and islands southwards within forty leagues of the said 
coasts thereof, including the great island commonly ealled Isle de Sable or Sab- 
Ion, lying towards the south-south-east, in the sea, abont thirty leagues from Cape 
Breton foresaid, and being in the latitude of forty-four degrees or thereabouts; 
which lands foresaid should in all time to come enjoy the name of Nova Scotia 
in America; Which also were vested in William, the said Earl of Stirling, 
according to a charter of novodamus under the great seal of the Mngdom of 
Scotland, dated the 12th day of July anno Domini 1625, made, given and 
zrdjjiei by Charles, Ejng of Great Britain, France and Ireland, in favour of the 
said William Earl of Stirling, (then and throughout named Sir William Ales- 
ander,) his heirs and assigns whaTsoever, heritably : And by which rharter it 
is declared, that the foresaid William Earl of Stirling shoiild divide the fore- 
said Izjilf- iz:: r'arts and pornons as should seem to him m, and bestow names 
on then a: i .risure : Toeether with all mines, as well royal of gold and silver, 
as other — ''-- of iron, lead, copper, tin, brass, and other minerals whatsoever. 
"with the power of digging and causing dig irom the land, purifying and re- 
fining the same, and converting and using them to his own proper use , or 
other OSes whatsoever, as should seem nt to the said William Earl of Stirling, 
his heirs or ass;gsE, or to those who, in their place, should happen to settle in 
the said lands : Reserving only to his said Majesty and his successors the 
tenth part of the metal, commonly ealled ore of gold and silver, that shall after- 
wards be dug or gained out of the earth : Leaving to tbe said William Earl of 
Stirling, and his foresaids, whaisoerer his said Majesty, and his sueeessois, 
might in any way demand of other metals, copper, steel, iron, tin, lead, or 
other minerEls. that they may so much the mere easily bear the great chargss 
cf estracting the foresaid meials, together with pearls and other precious 
stenes whatsctever, quarries, woods, copses, mosses, marshes, lakes, waters, 
FEHESiEs, as weB in salt water as in fresh, of royal nshes as of others, hunting, 
hawking, eoiDmodities and hereditaments whatsoever : Together with mQ 
t'Ower, privilege and jorisdiciiDn cf free regality and chancery ibr ever: and 
with the sifi and lieht of oatronase of churches, chapels and benenees, with 



tenant 

Justiciary and Aamiralry respectively, within the beunds above mentioned re- 
sp-ectrrelv : To&stheh 'also with the power of erecting corporations, free 
boroughs, free pons, towns and boroughs of barony, and of appointing m.ST- 
kets and feirs within the bounds of the said lands, and of^iioldin? courts of 
TTisiiciary and admiraliv within the boundaries of the said lands, nvers. pons 
and seas: together also with the power of imposing, levying and receivong aJ 
tolls, customs, anchorages, and other does of the said boroughs, marieis, sirs 
and free pcH^ and of posessing artrl enjoying the same as freely in all re- 



46 APPENDIX. 

spects as any greater or lesser baron in the kingdom of Scotland has enjoyed, 
or shall be able to enjoy them, at any time past or to come; with all other 
prerogatives, privileges, immunities, dignities, casualties, profits and duties 
belonging and pertaining to the said lands, seas, and bounds of the same ; and 
virhich his said Majesty shall have power to give and grant, as freely and in as 
ample form as he himself or any of his noble progenitors has granted any 
charters, letters patent, infeftments, gifts, or patents, to any subject of what- 
soever degree or quality, to any society or community, planting such colonies 
in whatsoever foreign parts, or exploring foreign lands, in equally free and 
ample form as if the same were inserted in the said charter: Making, consti- 
tuting and appointing the said William Earl of Stirling, his heirs or assigns, 
or their deputies, his said Majesty's Hereditary Lieutenants-general, to repre- 
sent his royal person, as well by sea as by land, in the countries, sea-coasts 
and boundaries foresaid, in repairing to the said lands, so long as he shall 
continue there, and in returning from the same ; to govern, rule, punish 
and pardon all subjects of his said Majesty who shall have happened 
to go to the said lands, or to be inhabiting the same, or who shall 
have engaged in trade with them, or shall remain in the same places, and to 
be favourable to them; and to establish such laws, statutes, constitutions, reg- 
ulations, instructions, forms of government, and ceremonies of magistracies 
within the said bounds, as to him, William Earl of Stirling, or his foresaids, 
for the government of the said country and its inhabitants, in all causes, crimi- 
nal as well as civil, shall seem fit; and to alter and change the said laws, regu- 
lations, forms and ceremonies, as often as he, or his foresaids, for the good 
and advantage of the said country, shall be pleased, so that the said laws were 
consistent, as much as they could be made, with ihe laws of the said kingdom 
of Scotland; And giving and granting free and plenary power to the foresaid 
William Earl of Stirling, and his foresaids, of conferring favours, privileges, 
employments and honours upon deserving persons, with full power to those, 
or any of them, who shall have happened to make covenants or contracts 
for the said lands with him, William Earl of Stirling, and his foresaids, under 
the subscription of himself or of his foresaids, and the seal mentioned in the 
said charter, of disponing and ovei'giving any portion or portions of the said 
lands, ports, naval stations, rivers, or any part of the premises; of erecting 
also inventions of all sorts, arts, faculties, or sciences, or of practising the same 
in whole or in part as to him, for their good, shall seem fit; also of giving 
granting and bestowing such offices, titles, rights and powers as to him shall 
appear necessary, according to the qualities, conditions and merits of ihe per- 
sons; With power to the said William Earl of Stirling, and his heirs and 
assigns, of erecting, founding and constructing common schools, colleges and 
universities, sufficiently provided with able and sufficient masters, rectors, re- 
gents, professors of all sciences, learning, languages and instruction, and of 
providing for sufficient maintenance, salaries, and living for them to that ef- 
fect; As also of instituting prelates, archbishops, bishops, rectors and vicars 
of parishes, and parish churches, and of distributing and dividing all the fore- 
said bounds of the said country into divers and distinct shires, provinces and 
parishes, for the better provision of the churches and ministry, division of the 
shires, and all other civil police; And likewise of founding, erecting and in- 
stituting a senate of justice, places and colleges of justice, council and session, 
senators thereof, members for the administration of justice within the said coun- 
try, and other places of justice and judicature: Further, of erecting and ap- 
pointing also secret and privy councils and sessions for the public good and 
advantage of the said country, and giving and granting titles, honours and 
dignities to the members thereof, and creating their clerks and members; And 
appointing seals and registers with their keepers; and also of erecting and insti- 
tuting officers of state, a chancellor, treasurer, comptroller, collector, secretary, 
advocate or attorney-general, a clerk or clerks of register, and keepers of rolls, 
justice clerk, director or directors of chancery, conservator or conservators of 
the privileges of the said country, advocates, procurators and solicitors there- 
of, and other members necessary: And further, of giving, granting and dis- 
poning any parts or portions of the said lands and lordship of Nova Scotia, 



APPENDIX. 47 

' heritably belonging to them, to and in favour of whatsoever persons, their 
' heirs and assigns, heritably, with the teinds and teind-sheaves thereof included, 
' (provided they are his Majesty's subjects,) to be holden of the said William 
' Earl of Stirling, or of his said Majesty and his successors, either in blench-farm, 
' feu-farm, or in ward and relief, at their pleasure, and to intitle and denomi- 
' nate the said parts and portions by whatsoever styles, titles and designations 
' should seem to them fit, or be in the will and option of the said William Earl 
' of Stirling and his foresaids; which infeftments and dispositions shall beap- 
' proved and confirmed by his said Majesty and his successors, freely, without 
' any composition to be paid therefor: Moreover, his said Majesty and his 
' successors shall receive whatsoever resignations shall have been made by the 
' said William Earl of Sterling, and his heirs and assigns, of all and whole the 
' foresaid lands and lordship of Nova Scotia, or of any part thereof, in the hands 
' of his said Majesty, and of his successors and commissioners, with the teinds 
' and teind-sheaves thereof included, and others generally and particularly above 
* mentioned, to and in favour of whatsoever person or persons, (provided 
' they are his Majesty's subjects, and live under his obedience,) and they 
' shall pass infeftments thereon, to be holden in free blench-farm of his said 
' Majesty, his heirs and successors, in manner above mentioned, freely, with- 
' out any composition: Moreover, giving, granting and committing power 
' to the said William Earl of Stirling, and his heirs and assigns, of having and 
' lawfully establishing and causing coin money in the said country and 
' lordship of Nova Scotia, and for the readier convenience of commerce and 
'agreements amongst the inhabitants thereof, of such metal, form and fashion 
' as they shall appoint or fix : Further, giving, granting, ratifying and con- 
' firming to the said William Earl of Stirling, and his heirs and assigns, all places, 
' privileges, prerogatives and precedencies whatsoever, given, granted and re- 
' served, or to be given, granted and reserved to the said William Earl of Stir- 
Ming, and his heirs and assigns, and his successors. Lieutenants of the said 
' country and lordship of Nova Scotia, over the knights-baronets and remanent 
' portioners and associates of the said plantation, so as the said William Earl of 
'Stirling, and his heirs-male descending of his body, as Lieutenants foresaid, 
' might and could take place, prerogative, pre-eminence aud precedency, as well 
' before all squires, lairds and gentlemen of the said kingdom of Scotland, as 
' before all the foresaid knights-baronets of the said kingdom, and all others 
' before whom the said knights-baronets, by privilege of the drgnity gaanted to 
' them, can have place and precedency : All and whole which province and 
' lands of Nova Scotia, with all the boundaries and seas of the same, were 
' united, annexed and incorporated into one entire and free lordship and barony, 
' to be called by the foresaid name of Nova Scotia in all time to come ; and by 
' which charter it is ordained, that one seisin, to be taken by the said William 
'Earl of Stirling, and his foresaids, at the Castle of Edinburgh, without any 
'other special or particular seisin by himself and his foresaids, at any other 
' part, shall stand and be sufficient, in all time coming, for all and whole the 
'country above mentioned, with all the parts, pendicles, privileges, casualties, 
' liberties, and immunities thereof; as in the said charter, comprehending divers 
' other conditions, provisions, limitations and restrictions, with many and great 
'.privileges, immunities, dignities and honours, is more fully contained; And 
'in which lands aforesaid, the foresaid William Eail of Stirling was duly infeft, 
' in virtue of the precept of seisin inserted in the end of the said charter, accor- 
' ding to instrument of seisin following thereon, dated the 29th day of September, 
' and recorded in the General Register of Seisins, &c. kept at Edinburgh, the 
' 1st day of October anno Domini 1625 : And THiT the said Alexander Earl of 
' Stirling and Dovan is nearest and lawful heir of the said deceased William 
' Earl of Stirling, his great-great-great grandfather, in all and sundry the lands 
' and others foresaid ; Anq that he is of lawful age ; And that the said lands 
' and others, with the pertinents, are holden immediately ofws in chief. Where- 
' fore we require and command you, that ye give seisin thereof to the foresaid 
' Alexander Earl of Stirling and Dovan, or his certain attorney, bearer hereof, 
' without delay, saving the right of every person whatsoever, and taking se- 
' curity of two pennies Scots money, by duplication of the blench farm-duty of 
' the foresaid lands and others as above mentioned, lying as above, due to us j 



48 APPENDIX. 

' and this no wise ye leave undone, these presents after the next term being to 
' no purpose. Witness myself at Edinburgh, the 7th day of July, and in the 
' second year of our reign, 1831. 

' To the Sheriff of Edinburgh and his Bailies, for Alexander Earl of Stirling 
'and Dovan, to his great-great-great grandfather. 

(Signed) ' William Campbell Jr. Sub.' 

AFTER READING and interpreting which precept of seisin, in the common 
speech, to the witnesses present, the foresaid Sheriff, in virtue of the said pre- 
cept of seisin, and of the dispensation therein contained, and the office of bail- 
iary therein committed to him, gave and delivered heritable state and seisin, 
actual, real and corporal possession of the said lands and others above specified, 
with the pertinents, to the before-named Alexander Earl of Stirling and Dovan, 
heir aforesaid, and that by delivery of earth and stone of the ground of the said 
Castel into the hands of the said attorney, for and in name of the said Alexan- 
der Earl of Stirling and Dovan, after the tenor of the said precept of seisin 
above inserted, and dispensation contained in the same, in all points. Where- 
upon, and upon all and sundry the premises, the foresaid attorney asked instru- 
ments from me, the undersigned notary-public. These things were so done 
at the said Castle of Edinburgh, within the outer gate there, in virtue of the 
dispensation foresaid, between the hours of eleven forenoon and twelve noon, 
on the day of the month, in the year of our Lord, and of the reign of our sov- 
ereign lord the King, above written, in presence of David Byars, clerk in the 
office of the clerk of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, and William Wilson, second 
son of me, notary-public, residing in Lyndoch Place, at Edinburgh, witnesses 
to the premises specially callfed and required, and this public instrument with 
me subscribing. 

And I truly, James Wilson, clerk of the diocese of Edinburgh, and clerk of the 
sheriffdom of Edinburgh, and notary public, by royal authority, and by the 
Lords of Council and Session, according to the tenor of the act of Parliament 
admitted, because at all and sundry the premises, whilst they were, as is be- 
fore stated, so said, done and performed, I was, together with the before- 
named witnesses, personally present, and all and sundry these premises 1 saw, 
knew, and heard so performed and said, and took a note of them ; therefore 
I, being called and required, prepared therefrom this present public instru- 
ment, by another hand, upon this and the six foregoing pages of parchment, 
duly stamped, with the marginal addition on page third, faithfully written, 
and have rendered it in this form of a public instrument ; and in faith, corro- 
boration and testimony of the truth of all and sundry the premises, have sign- 
ed and subscribed the same with my sign, name and surname, used and wont. 

Veritas. 

Ja. Wilson, N. P. 
Dav. Byars, witness. 
Wm. Wilson, witness. 

At Edinburgh, the twelfth day of August one thousand eight hundred and 
thirty-one years, this sasine was presented by Ephraim Lockhart, writer to the 
signet, and is recorded in the one thousand six hundred and forty-sixth book of 
the new General Register of Sasines, Reversions, &c. and on the 102, 103, 104, 
105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, and lllth leaves thereof, conform to the act of 
Parliament made there anent in June 1617, by me, depute-keeper of said Regis- 
ter. Ar. Wishart. 



appendix. 49 

[translation. ] 
INSTRUMENT OF SEISIN 

IN FAVOUR OF 

ALEXANDER, EARL OF STIRLING AND DOVAN, 
OF THE LA^'DS, COUNTRY AND LORDSHIP OF CANADA AND OTHERS. 

IN THE NAME OF GOD, Amen. Be it known to all men by this pre- 
sent public instrnment, That on the 8th day of July, in the year of our Lord 
1831, and of the reign of our sovereign lord, William the Fourth, by the grace 
of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King, Defender of 
the Faith, the second year, In presence of me, notary-public, and the witnesses 
subscribing, appeared personally Ephraim Lockhart, writer to his Majesty's 
signet, as procurator and attorney, specially constituted, for and in the name 
of the Right Honourable Alexander Earl of Stirling and Dovan, Viscount of 
Stirhngand Canada, Lord Alexander of TuUibodie, &c. great-great-grea'.-grand- 
son and heir of the deceased Sir V/iiliam Alexander, Knight, the first Earl of 
Stirling, whose power of piocuratory was sufficiently known to me, the under- 
signed notary-public; and there also appeared Thomas Christopher Banks, 
Esquire, residing in No, 19. Duke Street, Edinburgh, bailie in that part speci- 
ally constituted, in virtue of the charter under mentioned, and precept of sei.sin 
therein contained, to the Castie of Edinburgh, the place for giving seisin of the 
lands and others under written, in virtue of the union and dispensation con- 
tained in the said charter and precept of seisin under written ; the said attorney 
HAYiKG and HOLDING in his hands a certain extract registrate charter, made, giv- 
en and granted by Charles. King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, under 
his Great Seal, containing therein the precept of seisin for giving to the foresaid 
Sir William Alexander, his Majesty's Hereditary Lieutenant of the country 
and lordship of Nova Scotia in America, and his heirs and assigns, heritably for 
ever, seisin of all and sundry islands lying within thegulf of Canada, between 
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, at the mouth and entrance of the great river 
Canada, where it falls and enters into the said guif, (including therein the great 
island Anticosti): Also of all and sundry islands lyicg within the said river 
Canada, from the said mouth and entrance up to the head, first rise and source 
thereof, wheresoever it is, or the lake whence it flows, (which was thought to 
be towards the great bay of California, called by some the Vermillion Sea,) or 
within any other rivers falling into the said river Canada, or in whatsoever 
lakes, waters or straits, by which either the said great river Canada or any of 
the said other rivers pass, or in v/hich they run out : And further, of fifty leagues 
of bounds on both sides of the aforesaid river Canada, from the said mouth and 
entrance to the said head, spring and source thereof: also on both sides of the 
said other rivers falling thereinto : as also on both sides of the said lakes, straits 
or waters by which any of the said rivers pass, or in which they terminate : And 
likewise, of all and whole the bounds and passages, as well on the waters as 
on the land, from the foresaid head, spring p.nd source of the river Canada, 
wheresoever it is, or v/hatsoever lake it has its course from, to the foresaid bay 
of California, whatsoever shall be found to be the distance : with fifty leagues 
altogether on both sides of the said passage over against the said head of the 
river Canada and bay of California ; and likewise of all and sundry islands 
lying within the said bay of California ; as also of all and whole the lands and 
bounds adjacent to the said bay on the west and south, whether they be found 
a part of the continent or main land, or an island, (as it was thought to be.) 
which was commonly called and distinguished by the name of California: 
Moreover, of all and sundry other lands, bounds, lakes, rivers, straits, woods, 
forests and others that shall have been explored, conquered or discovered at any 
time to come by him the foresaid Sir William Alexander, or his successors, 
their confederates, associates, or others in their name, or having power frora 
7 



60 APPENDIX. 

them, upon both sides of the whole bounds and passage aforesaid, from the 
mouth and entrance of the said river Canada, where it discharges itself into the 
said gulf of Canada, to the said bay of California, or islands in the seas thereto 
adjacent, which were not heretofore really and actually possessed by others, either 
the subjects of his said Majesty, or the subjects of any other Christian prince or 
constituted orders in alliance and friendship with his Majesty: With full and ab- 
solute POWER to him the said Sir Wm. Alexander, and his foresaids, (and to no 
others,) their stewards, servants, and others in their name, of planting colonies 
and engaging in trade in the before-named places or bounds, or any part of them 
particularly marked out, and of expelling or debarring all others from the same; 
also of allocating proportions of ti.e lands thereof to whatsoever person or per- 
sons shall teem to him fit, and upon the same terms, conditions, restrictions, 
and regulations within all the forenamed bounds, as he could do in Nova Scotia, 
by whatsoever charters or patents granted to him by his said Majesty's father, 
or his Majesty himself, also with s ich and as great irivileges, liberties, and 
immunities in all the foresaid places or bounds, islands, and others above writ- 
ten, as well as in the sea and fresh water as on land, as the said Sir William 
Alexander had i i Nova Scotia by his prior charters or patents of Nova Scotia ; 
which privileges contained in the said prior charters, and every one of them, 
his said Majesty ordained to be equally sufficient and valid, ana willed to be 
altogether of the same strength, force, and effect, as if they had severally been 
particularly and one by one granted and set forth word for word in the said 
charter, as to the not particular insertion of which in the said charter his said 
Majesty for ever dispensed : By which charter also it is ordained and declared, 
that it should in nowise be prejudicial or derogatory to whatsoever rights, char- 
ters or patents granted to the foresaid Sir William Alexander, or his aforesaid, 
of or concerning Nova Scotia, at whatsoever time preceding the date of the said 
charter, or to any head, clause, article or condition therein set forth; as also, that 
it should be without prejudice to any prior charter granted by his said Majesty, 
or to be granted at any time to come, to whatsover Baronets within Scotland of 
the country of Nova Scotia: And his said Majesty specially prohibited and 
debarred all and sundry his subjects, of every degree or condition, in any of his 
kingdoms or dominions, from making any plantation, or engaging in any trade 
in the said places or bounds, bays, rivers, lakes, islands and straits above 
written, or in any part thereoi, without the special advice, permission and con- 
sent of the foresaid Sir William Alexander, or his foresaids ; and with special 
power to the said Sir William Alexander, and his foresaids, of seizing, taking 
and apprehending all and sundry persons who shall be found to be in business 
and engaged in trade in any part of the said places or bounds contrary to the 
said prohibition, and of confiscating their ships and goods, and disposing thereof 
at pleasure to their own proper uses, without rendering any count or reckoning 
in any manner for the same, or any part thereof; and of doing all other things 
within all and whole the forenamed bounds or spaces, as freely and fully 
to all intents, purposes and ends as the foresaid Sir William Alexander, 
and his foresaids, could have done within the said country of Nova Scotia, 
or the said kingdom of Scotland, in virtue of any of the said letters patent, prior 
charters or patents: All and whole which lands, spaces or bounds, islands 
and others above set forth, were erected and united into one whole and free 
lordship, to be called of Canada, belonging and pertaining to the before-men- 
tioned Sir William Alexander and his foresaids, heritably for ever; ordaining 
seisin at the said Castle of Edinburgh, or upon the soil and ground of the fore- 
said lands, bounds and islands, or any part thereof, to be taken by the said Sir 
William Alexander, or his foresaids, to be in all time to come sufficient for all 
and whole the forenamed lands, bounds, islands, and others above specified, or 
any part or portion thereof, as to which his said Majesty for ever dispensed; 
as in the said charter and precept of seisin inserted in the end thereof, compre- 
hending divers other clauses, is moi-e fully contained : As also the foresaid 
attorney having and holding in his hands a certain general retour of the service 
of the before-named Alexander Earl of Stirling, &c. as nearest and lawful heir 
of the foresaid Sir William Alexander, the first Earl of Stirling, his great-great- 
great grandfather, expede before the bailies of the borough of Canongate, near 



APPENDIX. 61 

Edinburgh, the 11th day of October, anno Domini 1830, and duly retoured to 
his Majesty's chancery; and having a certain special retour of the service of 
the said Alexander Earl of Stirling, &c. as nearest and lawful heir aforesaid, 
expede before the Sheriff-substitute of the sheriffdom of Edinburgh, the 2d day 
of July in the year first above written, and likewise retoured to the said chan- 
cery ; which service includes a general service of the same kind and character; 
by either of which services the said Alexander Earl of Stirling, &c. acquired 
right to the foresaid charter, and to the precept of seisin still unexecuted, and 
all the other clauses therein contained ; as in the retours of the said services 
respectively is also contained ; Which extract charter, with the said retours, 
the foresaid attorney exhibited and presented to the said bailie in that part law- 
fully constituted as is before stated, and desired him duly to execute the com- 
mand and office committed to him by the said precept of seisin ; Which desire 
the said bailie finding to be just and reasonable, he received the said ex- 
tract charter and retours into his hands, and delivered them to me, notary-public, 
to be read, published and explained in the common speech to the witnesses 
present; Which I did, and of which precept of seisin, contained in the said 
extract charter, the tenor follows in these words: 'AND further, we have 
'made and constituted, and by the tenor of our present charter we make and 
' constitute 

' and any one of them, jointly and severally, our bailies in that part, giving and 
' granting to them, and any one of them, our full power and special warrant for 
' giving, granting and delivering to the foresaid Sir William Alexander, and his 
'aforesaid, or to their certain attornies, having or producing this our present 
'charter, heritable state and seisin, and also actual, real and corporal possession 
' of all and sundry the forenamed lands, bounds, rivers, lakes islands, straits 
' or passages, and others whatsoever, generally and particularly above set forth, 
' of the said country and lordship of Canada, at our said Castle of Edinburgh, or 
' upon the soil and ground of any part of the foresaid lands and bounds or 
' places, or in both manners, at the pleasure of the said Sir William Alexander 
'and his foresaids, commanding them, and any one of them, that on sight 
' hereof they, or any one of them, forthwith give and deliver heritable state 
' and seisin, and also actual, real and corporal possession of all and sundry the 
' forenamed lands, places or bounds, islands, rivers, lakes and others foresaid, 
' generally and particularly above set forth, to the foresaid Sir William Alex- 
' ander and his foresaids, or to their certain attorneys, having or producing this 
' our present charter, upon any part of the ground of the said lands, or at our 
' Castle of Edinburgh, or in both manners, as shall appear best to him and 
' his foresaids, by delivery of earth and stone to the foresaid Sir William and 
' his aforesaid, or to their attorneys, having or producing this our present ehar- 
' ter at the said Castle, or upon the soil and ground of the said lands and others 
' above written, or in both manners, at the pleasure of the said Sir William and 
' his foresaids ; which seisin so to be given by our said bailies in that part to 
' the foresaid Sir William and his aforesaid, or to their attorneys having or pro- 
' ducing this our present charter, we, for us and our successors, decree and 
' ordain to be good, lawful, valid and sufficient in all time coming, dispensing, 
' like as we, by the tenor of our present charter, dispense, as to all that can be 
' objected against the same, whether in form or in effect: Finally, we, for us 
' and our successors, with advice and consent foresaid, will, decree, declare and 
'ordain, that this our present charter, with all and sundry privileges, liber- 
' ties, clauses, articles and conditions above mentioned, be ratified, approved 
' and confirmed in our next Parliament of our kingdom of Scotland, or, at the 
' will and pleasure of the said Sir William Alexander and his foresaids, in any 
' other Parliament of the said kingdom hereafter to be holden, to have the 
' strength, force and effect of a decree of that supreme court; for doing which, 
' we, for us and our successors, will and declare our said charter, and the 
' clauses therein contained, to be a sufficient mandate or warrant, promising, on 
' the word of a King, the same shall be so done and performed. In witness 
' whereof we have ordered our Great Seal to be appended to this our present 
'charter, before witnesses, as in others, our cousins and counsellors, James 
' Marquess of Hamiltoun, Earl of Arran and Cambridge, Lord Aven and In- 



52 APPENDIX. 

' nerdaill, William Earl Marischal, Lord Keyth, &c., marischal of our king- 
' dom, George Viscount Duplin, Lord Hay of Kinfawins, our chancellor, 
' Thomas Earl of Hadingtoun, Lord Bynning and Byres, &c., keeper of our 
' Privy Seal, our beloved familiars and counsellors Sir William Alexander of 
' Menstrie, our principal secretary, Sir James Hamiltoun of Magdalenis, clerk 
' of our rolls, register and council, Sir George Elphingstoun of Blythiswod, our 
' justice-clerk, and Sir John Scot of Scottistarvett, director of our chancery, 
' Knights ; at our palace of Why thai!, the 2d day of February, in the year of 
' our Lord 1628, and of our reign the third.' AFTER reading, publishing 
and EXPLAINING which extract charter, and precept of seisin and retours, in 
the common speech, to the witnesses present, the foresaid Thomas Christopher 
Banks, bailie in that part aforesaid, again received the said extract charter and 
retours into his hands, and in virtue and by the strength of the same and of 
the office of bailiary committed to him, gave and delivered to the before- 
mentioned Alexander Earl of Stirling, &c., heir aforesaid, for himself, his heirs 
and assigns, heritable state and seisin, and also actual, real and corporal pos- 
session of ALL and SUNDRY the forenamed lands, bounds, rivers, lakes, islands, 
straits or passages, and others whatsoever, generally and particularly above ex- 
pressed, of the^said country and lordship of Canada, after the tenor of the 
aforesaid charter, the union and dispensation contained in the same, and the 
said precept of seisin above inserted, in all points by delivery of earth and stone 
of the ground of the said Castle into the hands of the said Ephraim Lockhart, 
attorney foresaid, for and in name of the before-mentioned Alexander Earl of 
Stirling, &c. Whereupon, and upon all and sundry the premises, the foresaid 
attorney asked instruments from me, notary-public. These things were so 
DONE at the said Castle of Edinburgh, within the outer gate there, in virtue of 
the union and dispensation aforesaid, between the hours of eleven forenoon and 
twelve noon, on the day of the month, in the year of our Lord, and of the reign 
of our sovereign lord the King, above written, in presence of David Byars, 
clerk in the office of the sheriff-clerk of Edinburgh, and William Wilson, writer 
there, witnesses to the premises specially called and required, and this public 
instrument with me subscribing. 

And I truly, John M'Gregor, clerk of the diocese of Edinburgh, and notary- 
public, by royal authority, and by the Lords of Council and Session, accord- 
ing to the tenor of the aci of Parliament admitted, because at ail and sundry 
the premises, whilst they were, as is before stated, so said, done and per- 
formed, I was, together with the before-named witnesses, personally present, 
and all and sundry the premises I saw, knew and heard so performed and 
said, and took a note of them; therefore 1, being called and required, pre- 
pared therefrom this present public instrument, by another hand, upon this 
and the two foregoing pages of parchment, duly stamped, faithfully written, 
and have rendered it in this form of a public instrument ; and in faith, corro- 
boration and testimony of the truth of all and sundry the premises, have 
signed and subscribed the same with my sign, name and surname, used and 
wont. 

Verum crede. 
Jn. M'Gregor, N. p. ' 
Dav. Byars, witness.- 
Wm. Wilson, witness. 

At Edinburgh, the twelfth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and . 
thirty-one years, this sasine was presented by Ephraim Lockhart, writer to the 
signet, and is recorded in the one thousand six hundred and fOrty-sixth book 
of the new Genetal Register of Sasines, Reversions, &c. and on the 111, 112, 
113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, and 119th leaves thereof, conform to the act of 
Parliament made thereanent in June 1617, by me, depute-keeper of said Re- 
gister. 

Ar. Wishart. 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING 



BEING 



PART II. OF THE VINDIGAT 



OF 



THE RIGHTS AND TITLES, 

POLITICAL AND TERRITORiAL, 

OP 

ALEXANDER, EARL OF STIRLING AND DOVAN, 
HEREDITARY LIEUTENANT GENERAL 

AND 

LORD PROPRIETOR OP CANADA AND NOVA SCOTIA 



BY JOHN L. HAYES, 

COUNSELLOR AT LAW. 



WASHINGTON: 

GIDEON & CO., PRINTERS 

1853. 



PEDIGREE— shewitig the Descent of the Earldoms of Stirling and DovAf<i,from the Creation of the Titles to the present Time. 



Andrew Alexander, 

of Menstrie, 

ninth in descent from Alexander M 'Donald 

second son of Donald, liing of the Isles. 



. Alexander Alexander, 
of Menstrie, ob. 1594. 



2. John Alexander, 

(From whom Gen '1 Alexander 

failed to prove descent.) 



1. Sir William Alexander, 

of Menstrie, Knight, 

Master of Requests to King James VI.; born 1580; 

knighted 1614. 

'ISth July, 1625, Hereditary Lieutenant, &c., of Nova 
Scotia; also Premier Baronet, with 
precedency from 21st May, 1625. 
4th Sept. 1630, Lord Mexander of Tullibodie, and 

Viscount of Stirling. 
14th June, 1633, Viscount of Canada and Earl of 

Stirling. 
30th July, 1637, Earl of Doran. 
7th Dec. 1639, Charter of Novo-Damus. 

Privy Councillor and Secretary of State, 1626; Keeper of the 
Signet, November, 1627; aLordof Session, 28th July, 1631. — Died 
at London in February 1640, and buried at Stirling, 12th April 
following. 



= Janet, 

I daughter and heir of 

[Sir William Erskine, Knight, 
P Bishop of Glasgow, and 
I cousin-german of 

I John, 6th Earl of Mar, 
Regent of Scotland. 



2. Andrew Alexander. 



Margaret Alexander, 

married Mr. James Gordon, 

Keeper of the Signet. 



1. "\^illiai 
Viscount Canada, 
died at London 

(vita patris) 

in March, 1638, 

and was buried 

at Stirling. 



* 



William, 

Marquis of Douglas, 
died 1st Jan. 1660. 



2. Sir Anthony, 
Master of the King's Works in 
Scotland, married a daughter of 
Sir Henry Wardlaw, of Pit- 
reavie, Bart. — Died at London, 
August, 1637, and was buried 
at Stirling. — Left no issue. 



William, 

2nd Earl of Stirling, 

died about May, 1640, 

aged eight years. 

End of the Male line 
of the first Son. 



1. Catharine, 

2. Jane. 

3. Margaret, 



Ao succession to the honours. 



: Walter, 
Lord Torpichen. 



: Sir Robert Sinclair, 
of Longfbrmacus. 



3. Henry, = 

3d Earl of Stirlinf, 

succeeded his 

nephew, 

William, 2d Earl, 

ob. ante 
16th August, 1644. 



* 



Mary, 
daughter and 
co-neir of 
Sir Peter Vanlon 
of Tylehurst, 
CO. of Berks, 
Bart. 



Elizabeth 
Maxwell, 

of 
Londonderry, 
2d Wife. 



= 4. John, = 

Settled in the 

North of Ireland, 

ob. 1666. 



Henry, = Judith, Jane, 

4th Earl of Stirling-, I daughter of ob. ante 

ob. 1690. 1 Robert Lee, 1739 

I of Binfield, 
!i county of Berks. 



Agnes, 1st Wife, 
daughter and heir 
of Hubert Graham, 
of Gartmore, Esq. 
representative, in the 
second branch, of the 

Earls of Menteith, 
and lineally descended 
from King Robert Bruce. 



5. Charles, 

married 
Ann Drury. 



6. Ludovick, 
died in infancy. 



7. Jaines, ( 1st. Hugh, Viscount Montgomery, 

married 1. Jane, =< of the Ardes. 

Grisel Hay. ( 2nd. Major-General Muuroe. 

2. Mary, = Sir William Murray, Baronet. 

3. Elizabeth, 
died unmarried. 



John, = Mary, 



died at 

Templepatrick, 

county of Antrim 

19th April, 1712; 

buried at 
Newtown Ards. 



(daughter of the Rev. 

Hans Hamilton, 

died June 1st, 1724, 

aged 63 years. 

Buried at 

Bangor, co. Down. 

I Succession of the Male 
[line of the fourth Son. 

* 



Janet, 

only 

daughter. 



Charles, Margaret, 
died ob. s. p. 
without issue. ' v ' 



1. Henry, 

5th Earl of Stirling, 
married Elizabeth, 
widow of John Hobby, Esq.; 
died, without issue, 
at Ewell Green, county of 
Surrey, 4th December, 1739, 
and was buried at Binfield. 



2. William. 

3. Robert. 

4. Peter. 

Omnes ob. s. p. 
ante 1730. 



End of the Male tine of the 
third Son. 



1. Mary, = . . . . Phillips, Esq. 

of Binfield, Berks. 
Issue extinct. 

2. Judith, = Sir Wm. Trumbull, Kt. 

ob. 1716. 



3. Jane, ob. s. p. 



John, r= 



6th Earl of Stirling, 
succeeded his 



Hannah, 



Henry, 5th Earl, 
4th December, 1739; 

born at Antrim, 
30th September, 1686, 

died at Dublin, 
1st November, 1743. 



1. John, 

7th Earl of Stirling, de jure, 

born at Dublin, 26th .'anuary, 1735-6 

died unmarried, 29th December, 1765. 



* 



* 



2. Benjimii 

8th Earl of Stilling, de jure, 

born at Dubhn, lltli March, 1736-7; 

died unmarried, 18th April, 1768. 



Last Heir Malt of the Body. 



1. Mary, 

Countess of Stirling, ie jure, 

born at Dublin, 1st October, 1733; 

died unmarried, at the Larches, 

April 28th, 1794. 



daughter of the Rev John 
Higgs, of Chadwich, county 
of Worcester, great-grand- 
daughter of Dr. Griffith 
Higgs, Dean of Lichfield, 
Temp. Car. 1. 
ob. 1768. 



1. Mary, 
died umarried. 



9. Elizabeth, = John Mee Skinner, Esq. 



* 



1st Heir Female of the last 
Heir Male. 



2. Hannah, 

Countess of Stirling, de jure, 
succeeded her sister, 1794; 
born at Dublin, 8th January, 1740-1; 
died at her house, in the College Green, 
Worcester, 12th September, 1814. 

2(i Heir Female of the 
lust Heir Male. 



= William Humphrys, 

of the Larches, county 

of Warwick, Esq., 

died at Verdun, in France, 

1st May, 1807. 



ALEXANDER, 

9th and present 

EARL OP STIRLING and DOVAN. 

Heir Male of the Heir Female. 



: Fortunata, 

daughter of Signer Giovanni 
Bartoletti, of Naples. 



Alexander, 
Viscount Canada. 



Charles Louis. Eugene John. William D. S. John Hamilton. 



Lady Angela E., 
Wife of W. W. Pearson, Esq. 



TIUAL OF LORD STIRLING, 



The remarkable fact cannot have escaped the notice of the public 
that, on the very day succeeding the one on which the notice of Lord 
Stirling's claims appeared in the New York Herald, long and most 
elaborately prepared attacks upon Lord Stirling appeared simultane- 
ously in several New York papers. That these attacks, prepared with 
so much care, and displaying so minute a knowledge of a most compli- 
cated case, could have been prepared after the publication in the Herald, 
no one can believe. A clairvo37ance, more mysterious than any know- 
ledge of the "Satanic Press," alluded to in one of these attacks, had fore- 
seen the announcement of Lord Stirling's case, and weeks of anxious 
labor had been devoted to expose the "transparent humbug. " But more 
extraordinary even than the celerity with which these rejoinders are 
given, is ihe mysterious knowledge exhibited, in one article at least, of 
facts and circumstances which never have been published in America, 
of events even which had never transpired beyond Scotland, and of 
rare books which are not found in any of our public libraries. It can- 
not be imagined for a moment that any of Lord Stirling's former 
friends in this country have been so base or insane as to betray his con- 
fidence. How, then, are we to account for this mysterious knowledge — 
this holy horror of fraud and imposture, so unusual in the most violent 
of the assailing papers; this undue zeal to expose an imposture which, 
according to their showing, is only ridiculous? No sooner was it known 
in England that Lord Stirling had embarked for this countr}'-, than 
sixty pages of Blackwood, the most venal and violent of the Tory 
magazines, are devoted to prejudice the American public by a false 
and distorted history of the infamous forgery trial which had occurred 
thirteen years before. No sooner does an American paper vindicate 
his rights, than a masked battery is opened upon Lord Stirling here. 
How can this be explained, except by supposing that the power of that 
mighty Government which has so vital an interest in wresting from him 
his formidable rights, and has pursued him with such vindictiveness in 



4 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

Scollandj England, and Fiance, has followed Lord Stirling across the 
Adantic, and is speaking even through the American press! Will not 
these things open the eyes of the American people? Will not they 
consider that a cause which is worthy of so formidable an opposition 
must possess inherent elements of strength? 

We shall not attempt to answer seriatim the charges in Blackwood- 
or the American papers. The positions maintained in a pamphlet, 
entitled ''A Vindication of the Rights and Titles of Lord Stirling," 
that these rights and titles have been judicially established by courts of 
competent jurisdiction, and have been officially recognised on the most 
solemn occasions, have never been refuted. 

In that pamphlet, prepared by Lord Stirling's counsel, no attempt 
was made to mislead the public as to Lord Stirling's position. It was 
distinctly stated that he was opposed by the British Government, and had 
been for years pursued by the officers of State with a vindictiveness 
almost unparalleled. For how could he be here setting up claims to 
the fisheries and the lands of Canada and Nova Scotia, except in open 
antagonism to the British Government? 

No attempt was made in the statement of Lord Stirling's counsel to 
keep out of sight the trial for forgery, for it has always been intended 
to present the full history of this trial as Lord Stirling's strongest claim 
upon the sympathy of a people who are quick to rouse themselves at a 
tale of grievous oppression. The principal object in this paper is to 
give to the world, for the first time, the true narrative of this remarka- 
ble trial, which is destined to take its place in history. But before 
entering upon that narrative, we will proceed to refute the main posi- 
tions of the British authorities, or their mouth-pieces, in Blackwood 
and some American papers. 

I, It is asserted that the Earldom of Stirling and the estates went 
only to heirs male, while Lord Stirling, originally known before his 
recognition as a Peer as Mr. Humphrys, claimed through a female. 

This objection, which was neve7' urged before the civil courts in 
Scotland in the attempts of the officers of State to reduce his services, or 
defeat his rights as heir to the Earl of Stirling, has been at no time 
brought forward, except by the Crown counsel in their address to the 
jury on the forgery trial, and then only to convey the impression that 
a charter which liad never been used by Lord Stirling to prove his heir- 
ship, had been fabricated to overcome this difficulty in his rights of 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. O 

succession. Tliis in itself is a suflicient answer to the objection. The 
limitation of all the Aniericon property by the charters of 1621 , 162-5, 
and 1628^ was the same, namely: ^'To Sir William Alexander, hered- 
ibus suis et assig7iatis Jicreditarie,^'' (his heirs and assigns heritably.) 
There is in these charters no limitation to male heirs. Every Scotch 
lawyer knows that the effect and meaning of this limitation has always 
been held, according to the Scotch law of descent, to carry the enjoy- 
ment of the subject limited, in this case the estates in Canada and 
Nova Scotia, in the first instance, to the heirs male of the body of the 
original grantee, whom failing, to the heirs female of the last heir male 
in a sniiilar course of succession. The right of Lord Stirling to the 
American estates is established by the common law of Scotland, and 
has never been seriously denied. He has uniformly founded all his 
proceedings in the different services on the charters of 1621, 162,5, and 
162S, which were granted to his ancestor. Sir Wm. Alexander, before 
his elevation to the peerage, which charters are all on record. 

It is true that the patent of 1633, which created Sir William Alex- 
ander Earl of Stirling and Viscount of Canada, limited the tide to his 
male heirs, and thus the American property was granted by the char- 
ters to a more general and extended series of heirs than the titles. 

The only question with which we have any interest, is the succes- 
sion of the lands and rights in America. But Lord Stirling's right to 
his titles, though this is comparatively of little importance, stands on an 
equally strong though different basis. 

In 1637, by a privy seal precept, the Earl of Stirling was created 
EarlofDovan, The limitation in this case was to his eldest lawful 
son and his heirs male lawfully procreate, whom failing, to the heirs 
male and assignees whatsoever of the said William Earl of Stirling, 
NoWj by the law of Scotland, it has been decided that where an honor 
or property is limited heredibus masculis et assignatis, the general 
heirs being included in the term assignatis, the heirs male of the body 
first succeed, and when they have failed, then the heir female, com- 
prised in the word '■•assignatis'''' of the last heir male^ becomes entitled 
to the succession. This was established in the House of Lords in the 
Polwarth case^ precisely similar to this. (See Dod's Peerage^ p, 409.) 

Thus by charters which are undisputed, and by laws of succession 
which cannot be denied, the Earl remains heir in special of tailzie and 
provision to the totality of the estates, American and Scotch; and to thg 
Earldom of Dovan, 



6 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 

We come to a statement of facts wholly unimportant as affecting 
Lord Stirling's rights to his American property, which have been de- 
nied, but which are susceptible of overwhelming proof. The eldest 
son of the Earl of Stirling having died in 1638, the Earl made a sur- 
render of all his honors and estates into the hands of King Charles, 
who, by a charter of Novo damns, under the great seal of Scotland^ 
dated the 7th December, 1639, regranted them to the Earl, "^to hold to 
himself and the heirs male of his body, whom failing, to the eldest 
heirs female, without division of the last of such heirs male, and to the 
heirs male of the bodies of such heirs female respectively." It is 
admitted that the original charter has disappeared, and is not found on 
record. But it can be shown where it was at different periods de- 
posited, who were the possessors of it, where it was once on record, 
what was the tenor of its limitations, and the casus omissionis. 

That the charter of Novo damns of 1639 once existed is established 
by historical evidence wholly independent of the other proofs which Lord 
Stirling has adduced, and which will hereafter be referred to. There 
is evidence — all of which we need not refer to here — that the original 
charter of Novo damns was in possession of General Wra. Alexander, 
known in our war of independence, who at one time set up claims to 
the title. It is believed that after his failure in the House of Lords he 
brought this charter to this country, and that, according to the deposi- 
tion of some of his descendants, it was burnt with other papers in his 
house at Albany. Horace Walpole, in his Anecdotes on Painting, 
vol. IL p. 19, under the head of Norgate, says: "The best evidence 
of his abilities is a curious patent lately discovered. The present Earl 
of Stirling (General Alexander, to whom Walpole courteously gave 
the title which he claimed) received from a relation an aid box of neg- 
lected writings, among which he found the original commission of 
Charles the First appointing his lordship's predecessor, William, Earl 
of Stirling, commander-in-chief in Nova Scotia, with a confirmation 
of the grant of that province made by James the First. In the initial 
letter are the portraits of the King sitting on the throne, delivering the 
patent to the Earl; and round the border, representations in miniature 
of customs, huntings, fishings, and productions of the country, all in 
the highest state of preservation, and so admirably executed, that it 
was believed to be of the pencil of Vandyke; but, as I know of no in- 
stance of that master having painted in this manner, I cannot doubt 
but it is the work of Norgate, allowed to be the best illuminator of that 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 7 

age, and generally employed, says Fuller, to make the initial letters of 
patents of peers and commissions of ambassadors." 

Norgate was appointed Windsor Herald in 1633, and soon after, 
illuminator of royal patents. From the date of his appointment as 
illuminator of royal patents, it is clear that the patent must have been 
one granted after 1633. The charters of Nova Scotia granted to Sir Wil- 
liam Alexander were, the one eight years, and the other twelve years, 
prior to 1633. The one alluded to, then, could only be the original 
charter of Novo damns of 1639, in which all the previous grants were 
recited and re-confirmed. 

The succession of the estates in 1640, according to the terras of the 
charter of 1639, proves incontestably the existence of the charter. 
The first Earl died in February, 1640, and was succeeded by his infant 
grandson, only son of his deceased eldest son, William, Viscount Can- 
ada. This William, second Earl, survived his grandfather scarcely six 
months, when he died, under eight years of age, leaving three sisters, 
his heirs portioners, by the Scotch common law, i. e., these heirs 
would have been entitled to divide his estates had they not been limit- 
ed by an entail which cut them oflf, and gave their inheritance to their 
uncle Henry, who, in fact, succeeded as third Earl. Again, some 
creditors of the first Earl presented a petition to Parliament for leave to 
commence certain legal proceedings against the third Earl. In this pe- 
tition they thus describe him, " Harrie, Earl of Stirling, son and heir 
male of tailzie and provision (or of entail) to umquile William, 
Earl of Stirling, his father and brother, and heir male of tailzie and 
provision to the said WiUiam, Lord Alexander, (fee. " The application 
of the creditors in charging Earl Harrie as heir male of tailzie and pro- 
vision, in the very terras of the charter of Novo damns, not only to his 
father, the first Earl, but to his brother, the deceased William, Vis- 
count Canada, puts on the journals of Parliament the evidence of the 
notoriety of the charter 5 for there was not any record of any entail of 
the whole of the Stirling estates to warrant such a description, if the 
charter of Novo daraus did not exist. 

All matters relative to succession of honors are carefully preserved as 
traditional knowledge by the nobility of Scotland. The foiTner exist- 
ence of this charter, and the nature of its limitations, were perfectly 
known to the Peers of Scotland; so that, when Lord Stirling took his 
seat as Peer in 1825, no objection to his right to the Earldom of Stir- 
ling was raised by his associate Peers. On the contrary, he was asked 



S TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

on every side why he had not resumed his rank at an earlier date, his 
right as the grandson of the Rev. John Alexander, sixth Earl, being 
well known to them. He took his seat unquestioned, just as the pres- 
ent Duke of Wellington has taken the seat of his late father. By voting 
as a Peer for a period of twelve years, he became de facto Earl of Stir- 
ling; for if a Scotch Peer takes his seat by virtue of a royal proclama- 
tion unopposed, and votes at elections, though it were in error, his title 
ig»as much acquired thereby, as were, under writs of summons in the 
time of Charles the 1st, the title of Baron Strange, by which James, 
eldest son of William, Eaii of Derby, and the title of Lord Clifford, by 
which Henry, eldest son of Francis, Earl of Cumberland, were re- 
spectively summoned to Parliament. These baronies were at the 
time presumed to be vested in the fathers of the young men so sum- 
moned; but although it was afterwards ascertained that the said ba- 
ronies were not so legally vested, yet as the persons summoned had 
taken their seats, the House of Lords w^as obliged to admit that the 
writs operated as new creations. (See Cruise on Dignities, p. 43.) 

Lord Stirling was not bound to go to the House of Lords for recog- 
nition of his title. This title is as firmly founded as that of the Earl 
of Newburgh, the Earl of Cassilis, the Earl of Dundonald, the Earl 
of Kintore, the Earl of Breadalbane, the Earl of Stair, and many 
others who assumed their titles on the deaths of distant cousins; none 
of whom have gone to the House of Lords for confirmation of title. 
(Vide Debrett's Peerage and LiO Age, passim.) 

Eminent counsel among others, James Wilson, a celebrated Scotch 
advocate, now chief justice of the Mauritius, have dissuaded Lord 
Stirling from going to the House of Lords. Judge Wilson in a written 
opinion now before us says, " In my humble opinion, were he, (Lord 
Stirling,) to go to the House of Lords by petition for allowance of dig- 
nity, he would be confessing a doubt of his own character, surrendering 
the rights of the Scotch nobility, and recognising a jurisdiction in this 
particular not made imperative by the treaty of union. Still, a party 
claiming the dignity of a Scotch Peerage may, if he choose, try the 
experiment, whether the House of Lords will entertain his claim, or 
decide upon it; and there are instances in which the party has so ap- 
plied, and the House so acted. But as far as Scotch authorities ena- 
ble me on principle so to judge, I consider such applications, except in 
cases utterly distinct and different from the present, to have been merely 



TRIAL OF LORD STIPJLING. f 

Optional iu the parly, and probably resorted to from motives of con- 
venience. 

If die present Earl of Sdrling has formally, legally, and on suffi- 
cient evidence, proved his character, as ex facie appears from the ser- 
vice and retour, d:c., he. until successfully challenged by a competitor 
nearer in blood, is and must remain the Earl of >Srirhng, whether he 
seeks for Eind obtains from the House of Lords the allowance of digni- 
ties or not." The opinion of — 

JAMES WILSON. 

That the charter of Xovo damus is not registered in Scotland is do 
objection to Lord Stirling's right to his title, even if he claimed under 
that charter alone. Bj referring to the return of the Lords of Ses- 
sion to the order of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament 
assembled, of date June 12, 1739, it appears that, at the period in 
question, searches were vainly made for the patents of creation to nu- 
vierous Scotch Peerages: and among others those of Ochiltree, Borth- 
vrick; Spynie, Cardross, Jedburgh, Maderlzy, Bargany, had entirely 
disappeared. It also appeal^ that the patent of Lord Forester, dated 
in 1651, was not entered in the register till 1653; and that of the Earl 
of Breadalbane, sealed in 1652, had never been registered at all. 
The patent of Lord Ruihven is rtated to have been burnt when the 
family residence was destroyed by fire; and although there was no re- 
cord of it, no vestige of any authentic proof of its limitations, yet the 
ancestor of the present Lord succeeded on the demise of the then ex- 
isting Baron, without heirs male, unchallenged to the honor. The 
enjoyment of these and other titles was, as in the case of Lord Stirling, 
secured by services of heirship, and by voting without challenge at 
elections of Peers. 

We repeat that the right to the estates in Oana-da. iSo'ca Scotia. 
aiid the fisheries, resting , as it does, on existing and undisputed 
charters, is icJwUy indapendent of the title: we have dwelt thus long 
upon this point only to show that Lord Stirling has assumed no posi- 
tion, either with respect to rights to lands or titles, on whicli he is not 
perfectly impregnable. 

II- It is opened that the son and heir of the first 1/ord Stirling 

granted all the possessions of the family in America to De la Tour. 

This siaiemem is only thus far true; 

In 1630 a grant was made by Sir Wiii Alexander to Sir Clauds 
•> 



10 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

St. Estienne, Knight Lord of La Tour, and his brother Charles de St. 
Estienne. This grant is recorded in the records of Suffolk county, 
Mass., lib. No. 3, fo. 265. The grant covered only a portion of the 
southwestern coast of Nova Scotia. This grant was on condition that 
this Knight De la Tour and his brother should be good and faithful 
vassals of the sovereign Lord the King of Scotland. The condition 
was not comphed with, and the lands reverted to the grantor. There 
is no evidence of any other deed. The grant to De la Tour was in 
1630. In 1632, King Charles, by his royal missive, sending a signa- 
ture for ten thousand pounds as a compensation for the surrender of 
Port Royal, says, ^'it is in nowise for quitting the title, right, or pos- 
session of New Scotland, or of any part thereof, but only for the satis- 
faction of the losses, &c.; and we are so far from abandoning of that 
business, as we do hereby require you and everie one of you to afford 
your best encouragement for farthering of the same," &c. 

Moreover, M. D'Anvilie, the accurate French geographer, in his 
great chart of North America, published in 1735, and the memoir rela- 
tive thereto, says: '^'Nova Scotia, usurped by the French in 1603, 
They were forced out by Orgal in 1613. Granted in 1621 to Sir Wm. 
Alexander, and the boundaries were St. Lawrence River on the north, 
and on the west St. Croix. By a second grant in 1635 it was en- 
larged to the Kenebec River, to co-extend Nova Scotia with Acadia." 
Sir William Alexander could not have wanted a grant in 1635 to en- 
large a country which he had disposed of in 1630. 

III. It is asserted that the rights of the Stirlings to Nova Scotia and 
Canada were lost by the conquest of these countries by France; that 
they were restored to Great Britain by the treaty of Utrecht of 1713 
on a new basis, as if they then became British for the first time. 

By the very terms of the charters no effective cession of those coun- 
tries could have been made without Sir Wm . Alexander's assent. The 
King had renounced all lands, privileges, jurisdiction, &c., ^^together 
with," following the terms of the charters, "^^all right, title, &c., which 
we or our predecessors, or successors, have had, or any way can have, 
claim or pretend to." This point was very gravely considered by 
l,awyers the most distinguished for their knowledge of national law. 
We have before us the joint opinion of the distinguished Privy Coun- 
cillor, the Right Honorable Stephen Lushiugton, D. C. L., Judge of 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 11 

the Consistory Court, and Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, &c., 
and Hon. James Wilson, now Chief Judge at the Mauritius, 

After giving their opinion that the rights of Lord Stirling had not 
been lost by non user, and that the estates had not been alienated by 
his ancestors, the learned counsel cautiously proceed to "consider the 
effect of the territory of Nova Scotia and Canada having by conquest 
and cession passed into the power of another State." 

''We are of opinion," say they, "that the additional information 
with which we have been furnished has greatly diminished some of 
the difficulties which rendered the result uncertain. The difficulties 
diminished are those arising from the treaties; and the case is greatly 
assisted in another respect by the reservation in King William's char- 
ter. In these respects the case certainly stands more favorably. It is 
held that, if a colony be conquered by the enemy during war, and 
given up at the peace by treaty, all rights existing previous to the con- 
quest revert to the proprietors, with some exceptions not material to this 
case. If a colony be ceded by treaty, the right of the Crown cedino- 
such colony is wholly extinguished. The rights of individuals, as we 
formerly stated, depend on the State to which the cession is made- and 
if hereafter the same colony should be given back by treaty to the 
State which formerly held it, that State will take it back precisely as it 
stood at the time when so last ceded, free from all rights, titles, and 
encumbrances which may have existed at the time of the first cession, 
and annihilated before the retrocession. 

"Presuming that the claim of the grantees is not extinguished by the 
different cessions, we think that nothing appears to have been done 
by the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain which can have the 
effect of destroying those rights." 

IV. It is urged that the proceedings by which Lord Stirling was 
judicially served heir to Sir Wm. Alexander are entitled to no weight. 

It is stated in the longest and most serious attack' made on Lord 
Stirling, and one containing such minute references to circumstances 
not known out of Scotland, although distorted and falsely stated, that 
it bears intrinsic evidence of its foreign origin, as follows: "In Scot- 
land, by old practice, on going through certain formalities, a man who 
claims tide or land, or both, may be served heir before the macers, 
(officers in attendance on the Supreme Court,) on putting in his claim, 
producing documents which were not examined, except when they 



12 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

attempted to obtain property and were challenged; and this serrice 
(usually made with a free circulation of the whiskey bottle) obtained a 
public and judicial certificate of his pedigree, which;, if subsequently 
questioned, has to be disproved by evidence. Mr. Humphrys^ before 
this drunken tribunal, (of macers,) whose occupation in such matters 
has since been abohshed, thus asserted his descent," &c. Further on 
it is said, Mr. Humphrys had really been so served "before the 
macers." 

In Bell's Dictionary of the Law of Scotland, under the word 
^'macers," is the following passage: ''Brieves for serving heirs where 
the Judge Ordinary is incompetent, or where expediency renders it 
necessary, were formerly directed to the macers of the Court of Ses- 
sion as the sheriffs in that part, under a special commission from the 
Chancery office. This practice, however, was abolished in 1821 ; and 
by statute 1 and 2, George IV, c. 28, §11, those services which were 
in use to be conducted before the macers are directed to proceed before 
the sheriff depute of Edinburgh, or his substitute, under a special 
commission from Chancery, similar to that in virtue of which the 
macers formerly acted." 

Lord Stirling's services were commenced and completed, one in 
1826, one in 1830, and two in 1831; each before a jury of fifteen, all 
under the amended system established in 1821, and none of them 
before the macers. Of the last jury, before whom the most important 
service vi^as made, two were eminent advocates, ten others lawyers 
well known and respected, and the three others a distinguished physi- 
cian, an heir to a baronetcy, and a respectable accountant. Even 
Lord Meadowbank, who five years afterwards figured so disreputably 
in the forgery trial, on an application for a trial by jury in the civil 
case of reduction of the services, in giving the decision that there 
should be no jury trial, bore testimony to the high character of this 
jury. He says: ''After fifteen gentlemen, forming the respectable jury- 
empannelled for Lord Stirling's services, had given their verdict, as 
they appeared on this record, it would be inconsistent to submit those 
verdicts to the revision of twelve men, who might be selected from the 
shopkeepers of the city." 

V. It is said that there are other descendants of Sir William Alex- 
ander who are better entitled to the estates and honors. 

Those mentioned are the heirs of Gen. Alexander, of revolutionary 



TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING, 18 

memory, and the lale Marchioness of Downshire. We meet this objec- 
tion at once by referring to the four services by which tlie present Lord 
Stirling was served heir without a competitor. With regard to the 
pretensions of the heirs of Gen. Alexander we remark, that Gen. Alex- 
ander did not claim to have descended lineally from the first Lord 
Stirling, but from a collateral branch of the family, and that his claim 
to the peerage was rejected by the House of Lords because he did not 
show that the lineal descendants were extinct. 

In 1840, after the forgery trial, which we shall hereafter describe, 
Mr. Watts, a grandson of Gen. Alexander, undertook to establish the 
rights of his family to the Stirling titles and estates. He presented his 
papers to the most eminent counsel in London, and paid =^200 for an 
opinion. They advised him that he did not show a descent from the 
first Earl of Stirling, and that his papers went to confirm the rights of 
the present Earl. We have before us the letters of Mr. Watts, written 
after he had abandoned his claim, addressing Lord Stirling by his title^ 
promising to place in his hands the documentary proof upon which he 
had relied. 

The Marchioness of Downshire was unquestionably a lineal descen- 
dant of the first Earl; and one of the strongest proofs of the rights of 
the present Lord Stirling is the fact that, althoiiSgh an undoubted de- 
scendant of the first Earl, and the wife of a rich and powerful peer, 
she has never appeared to compete in his services or has brought 
a suit to reduce them. Lord Stirling has repeatedly and publicly, but 
in vain, challenged the late Marquis of Downshire, representing his 
mother, to compete with, or try by a legal issue, who was the nearest 
heir. The refusal of other descendants of the first Earl to meet this 
issue is a distinct acknowledgment that the present Earl of Stirling has 
a legal right to the honors of the family. 

Finally, let us point out as evidence of the spirit of these attacks on 
Lord Stirling that his opponents persist in calling him Mr. Humphrys, 
although they knew well that, previous to assuming his title, he ob- 
tained from King George IV his royal license to take the name and 
arms of Alexander. This taking of the mother's name is a common 
practice in England when the mother happens to be an heiress. 



14 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 

We have stood long enough on the defensive. The accusers shall 
now become the accused. We will give a narrative of political op- 
pression such as the records of the Star Chamber cannot parallel. 
This true history is all the reply that need be given to Blackwood. 
We ask our readers to look on that picture and on this, and we will 
abide by their verdict. 

Let the position of Lord Stirling be remembered. He claimed 
under royal charters the right of ownership and government over Eng- 
land's most cherished colonies. He aimed to seize the brightest jewels 
of the British Crown. All the pretences first set up against these 
claims, some of which we have already considered, were found so 
frivolous that they could not be sustained. Although Lord Stirling's 
position had been fully recognised before the extent of his claims was 
known, political necessity demanded his ruin. The task was a formi- 
dable one for the Crown. His position seemed impregnable. His 
heirship and title had been acknowledged by the English Government, 
through the Lord Chancellor, Lyndhurst, two Prime Ministers, Earl 
Grey and Lord Melbourne, Lord Stanley, Secretary of the Colonies, 
the Lords of the Treasury, and the Lords of the Committee of the 
Privy Council, which last was the act of the King in Council. It 
had been established according to Scottish usage and precedent. Sixty 
intelligent men had pronounced upon his condition. The sympathies 
of the people were with him. Their hereditary knowledge of the 
descent of ancient families, no where so well preserved as in Scotland, 
had satisfied them as to his rights^ and it may be remarked that the 
popular sympathy was with him to the very last. The burghers of 
Stirling had welcomed him to the seat of his family, and had presented 
him the freedom of the city. He had been invited to appear at the 
gathering of the clans Alexander and McAllister, and assume his posi- 
tion as chieftain. The Baronets of Nova Scotia were about to call 
him to his place as the head of their order. The bioadest domain pos- 
sessed by a subject was his right; the proudest place in the peerage of 
Scotland, and precedence as hereditary viceroy of the nobility of Eng- 
land, was his inheritance. 

' ' A bold stroke ' ' to save these colonies was that of the officers of 
State when they determined, under the shelter of the ermine, to out- 
rage law and justice, and by legal forms to oust Lord Stirling from his 
just rights. 



TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 15 

The first act was to bring a suit in the name of the Crown to reduce 
his services, in defiance of the maxim of Scotch law, that "the Crown 
refuses no vassal," and the well settled principles of law that no one 
could challenge the service who did not claim to be nearer in bloody 
and a direct violation of the charters whereby the Crown had surren- 
dered all right to the territory. 

This suit was brought in May, 1833. From that remarkable fear 
of the influence of the Crown, which seems to have palpably charac- 
terized all the acts of his counsel in Scotland, Lord Stirling was not 
advised, as he should have been, to take no other notice of the 
summons of reduction than pleading that the Crown had no right to 
reduce his services. The opinion expressed by the Chancellor and 
Ex-chancellors afterwards in the House of Lords, in 1845, that the 
Crown had no right to reduce his services, shows that he should have 
rested firmly on the res judicatas of the completed services, and the 
protecting clauses of the charters of the family. If this had been 
done, the Government would have been bafl!led, and the proceedino-s 
commenced by its servile adherents in Scotland would have fallen to 
the ground. Most unfortunately, the courage or sagacity to pursue 
this course was wanting, and the cause went on according to the will 
of the Crown. Meanwhile Lord Stirling was doomed to be "tor- 
mented, and handed over to chicaners, who deal in all the fatal sub- 
tleties of a jurisdiction worn out by time and fallen into decay." 

Months and years passed away. The expenses of the cause went 
on increasing. Delays succeeded delays; for the purpose of the Go- 
vernment was accomplished by keeping the cause in court. But 
Lord Stirling, strong in the knowledge of right, tenax propositi, firm 
in purpose as only a just man could be, and fearless of the tyranny 
of the Crown, well knowing, too, the marvellous traces which truth 
leaves of herself, continued his researches for new documents and 
proofs in Ireland, America, and France. These proofs were exhibited 
before the court, and were so overwhelming, that the officers of State 
were staggered. As Blackwood acknowledges, ''the documentary 
evidence, if genuitie. established his claims irrefragablyy 

The principal of these documents, obtained by him in France, was 
filed in court by Lord Stirling only for the purpose of getting an order 
from the court for a commission to France to verify tlie French docu- 
aients, alleged to be noviter vetiie?ites, according to the Scotch law; a 
tiimg which obviously could only be done in the country where they 



16 TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 

were known, and in whose language, and by whose countrymen, they 
W^ore written. 

Again and again did Lord Stirling press for a commission. This 
reasonable request was most unjustly refused j for the officers of State 
believed the documents genuine, and some of them congratulated Lord 
Stirling's law agents for having such irrafragable proofs of their client's 
rights. 

If the officers of State had seriously doubted the genuineness of the 
French documents, they would have submitted them to an exami- 
nation in France, where the imposture, if it existed, would instantly 
have been exposed. The judges in the Crown's interest evidently 
feared to assume the responsibility of deciding against Lord Stirling 
in the face of these overwhelming proofs. They dared not risk the 
the result of a commission to France, where the authenticity of the 
documents would have been established. The officers of the Crown 
ventured, therefore, upon the hazardous step of endeavoring to make 
them appear forgeries. In order to build up and fortify this shameful 
■accusation, they pursued a series of singular manoeuvres which we 
will hereafter expose, and finally concluded, after much hesitation, to 
pursue the desperate and illegal course of commencing a criminal suit 
against Lord Stirling for the forgery of documents which they feared 
to encounter in the civil court. 

When this course was resolved upon, the officers of State had none 
of the obstacles in their way which would have intervened in Eng- 
land, for the Lord A-dvocate of Scotland is not only the public prose- 
cutor, but has the power which in England and this country belongs 
to the grand jury. Thus any 'one can be put on his trial in Scotland 
at the will or caprice of the Lord Advocate, and thus the innocent ac- 
cused is deprived of the first defence against the tyranny of the Crown. 

Lord Stirling was warned of the intention of the officers of State, 
but his English and Scotch legal advisers assured him that it was im- 
possible that the judges of the court of session, having never pro- 
nounced a judgment for or against his rights, would permit the inter- 
vention of a criminal action before they had themselves come to a de- 
cision. "The English laws," wrote his London adviser, "would 
afford your Lordship efficacious protection under such circumstances." 
" Our laws," said the Scotch agent, " have provided against the pos- 
sibility of an attempt to deprive any person engaged in litigation of his 
liberty at the inslancc of his adversary. Jt is what they do not tolerate 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 17 

under any circumstances, pending a suit undecided in the civil court." 
These words of the Scotch and EngMsh counsel were all vain. It 
was resolved that the criminal issue should proceed, in outrage of all 
constitutional rights. 

Mark how oppression is stamped on these proceedings at the very 
outset. A commission to examine the authenticity of French docu- 
ments in France, where alone they could be properly examined; a 
commission demanded in pursuance of the laws of Scotland, and the 
practice of the court of session, is refused. The Crown, a party in a 
suit, involving some of its most valuable rights, takes the cause from a 
civil court, and to throw disgrace upon documents which it cannot 
otherwise impeach, incriminates them in a criminal court. The cause is 
kept for months in the civil court without a decision, that the means 
for preparing the criminal prosecution may be fully perfected. The 
investigation is brought 'from Paris, where the only proofs could be 
foundj but where the Crown influence could not prevail, to a distance 
of seven himdred miles from the place where the only witnesses com- 
petent to testify in such case resided, and whither the witnessesj whose 
age and position would throw the most light on this investigation, could 
not be brought. 

This was but the first step in this arbitrary business, which was 
quickly followed by other outrages. 

On the morning of the 14th February, 1839, Lord Stirling was ar- 
rested in his own house at Edinburgh. He was taken by the sheriff's 
bailiffs to the county hall, where the sheriff holds his court. In the 
mean time, a son of Lord Stirling had communicated with two of his 
counsel, who indignantly demanded permission to see him. This per- 
mission the Crown officers refused; and Lord Stirling's counsel had no 
other resource than to protest in writing against a tyranny which was 
sanctioned neither by the laws of the country nor the practice in criminal 
proceedings. 

What follows will hardly be believed. Lord Stirling, unsupported 
by counsel or his friends, was submitted to a rigorous examination by 
the sheriff on questions prepared by the Crown counsel. He believed 
himself compelled to answer the insidious questions of his adversaries, 
and although he should have been silent, answered with boldness and 
dignity. At eight o'clock in the evening he was allowed to take some 
refreshment, and after two hours suspension the examination proceed- 
3 



18 TRIAL OP LORD STtRLING. 

ed, and was continued till midnight, when he was committed to prisofj. 
Four days afterwards he was brought again to court at ten o'clock in 
the morning, and submitted to repeated examinations, which werecoiv 
tinned till two o'clock on the following morning. 

In the mean time the sheriff's officers denfanded from Lord Stirling^ 
the keys of his cabinets, and a written authority fo-r the officers to 
have free access to the deed chests, boxes, writing desk^ and other re- 
positories in his house; and this authority, with the keys, he was 
compelled to give, as he was assured that otherwise they wO'uld break 
open' the doors and force the locks. The officers of the law ransacked 
llie Iwuse of their victim from attic to celb.r, and seized all papers 
which tbey thought important; another act directly in contravention 
of the constitution and laws, which secure the house of a subject 
from violation, excejM: in cases of treason. 

These acts, be it remembered, occurred in the year 1839., on British 
soil. All that v/as wanting of the inquisition were the instruments of 
physical torture; and yet no indignant press,, and no outraged people, 
lifted up their voices against this ©ppression. These facts have been 
published in England, and have never been denied. The words 
wrung from the victim by the inquisitors, and the papers seiz-ed in 
his house, were used against him, though happily with no effect on 
the trial. Even the casuistry of Blackwood offers no excuse for this 
outrage; although acknowledging the fact, it mildly speaks of the pro- 
ceeding as '■^ unusual.''^ 

The motives of the inquisitors for pursuing this desperate course 
is obvious. The conspirators had not completed their plans for 
the accusation; they looked for some acknowledgment^ some con- 
tradiction or confusion, which might serve their purpose. But most 
signally did they fail. The answers were all consistent. Nothing 
having the trace of a suspicion was found among the papers. Who 
cannot see already in the boldness with which the accused submitted 
to this fearful ordeal, in the absence of any contradiction or inconsist- 
ency in his answers to questions insidiously prepared to entrap him, 
and in the want of the shghtest evidence of fraud among papers and 
correspondence accumulated through twenty years, during which he 
had been collecting and preparing proofs of his descent,, convincing 
proof of his innocence? 

But we must hasten to the trial, tlie approaches to whicli are over- 
shadowed by suspicions, if not proofs, of such foul wrong. 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 19 

Six documents — Iranshuions of which will be found in tlie appendix — 
alleged to have been produced by Lord Stirling as evidence in his civil 
suit, were charged as forgeries, and declared to have been uttered by 
iiini knowing them to be forged. The most important of these docu- 
ments, which if genuine, contained conclusive proof as to liis right, 
and tlie one upon which the attacks of his adversaries were principally 
directed, was a map publislied in 1703 by the celebrated geographer 
Guillaume de L'Isle, of the Acadeniy of Sciences. On the back 
of this map are several original documents, dated in ITOG, 1707, 
1712, authenticated by attestations written and signed by Flechier, 
Bishop of NJsmes, and by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray. Now, 
as these documents furnished important proof of the descent of the 
accused from the first Earl of Stirling, and established the exist- 
ence, tenor, and limitations of the missing charter, it was of the high- 
est importance to brand them as supposititious. 

But taken as a whole or in detail, having regard both to the execu- 
tion and tenor of these documents, there was no blemish, error, or in- 
trinsic evidence of falsification. Not only was there a perfect harmony 
of the different parts, and a perfect imitation of various writings, but, 
there was displayed so vast a knowledge of facts, of places, of real 
names in Scotland, Ireland, and America^ such an acquaiutauce with 
the genealogy of many great families; so vast an erudition extending 
from the literary history of France to the style of the stonecutter; such 
knowledge of geography, heraldry, and even the barbarous Latin of 
chancery writings, that it was a miracle surpassing all that the art of 
the forger had ever attained to, for one or many falsifiers to have 
achieved the work. Viewed as authentic, the execution of the work 
was natural) viewed as false, it was hardly less ttian miraculous. 

What must have added more to the embarrassment of those who 
wished to assail these documents was, that the awlhentioity of the 
writing and sigiiature of Fenelon, which formed one of the documents, 
was attested at Paris, in 1837, by M. Daunou, the keeper general of 
the archives of the kingdom, a member of the Institute, and one of the 
most renowned scholars of Europe. The authenticity of the signature 
and writing of Flechier, Bishop of Nismes, and of Louis XV, and 
other writings on the map, was attested in 1837 by M. Villenave, one 
of the Presidents of the Historical Institute, and posscssii^g the laigest 
collection of autographs in France. 

VVJiat ground, tiien, had the ofikcis of State on which to iec>t thcit 



20 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

attack? It was this, and this alone. The map of Canada was pub- 
lished in 1703. On the incriminated copy we read "par Guillaume 
de L'Isle, premier geographe du Roi," (by Guillaume de L'Isle, 
first geographer of the King.) But the title was not conferred on the 
author by patent until 1718. The writings of Fenelon and Flechier, 
which are on the map, bear the date of 1707, before Guillaume de 
L'Isle had obtained his patent, and could take by virtue of that patent 
the title of first geographer of the King, Flechier had died in 1710, 
and Fenelon in 1715; therefore, say the Scotch lawyers with much 
apparent force, the writings purporting to be those of Flechier and 
Fenelon must have been forged. We have endeavored to state with 
perfect fairness the grand charge against the genuineness of the docu- 
ments. Without this apparent contradiction in the date Of the patent 
of De L'Isle, and the date of the deaths of Flechier and Fenelon^ no 
one would have dared to impeach the documents. 

The only testimony impeaching the map in other respects Was that 
given by two French witnesses, M. Teuletj one of the secretaries of 
the archives of the kingdom of France, and M. Jacobs, geographical 
engraver, attached to the Institute of France. M. Jacobs, in reply to 
a question from the Crown counsel, (we adopt the Crown report,) 
says: ''In my conscientious belief, 1 feel convinced that all the writings 
on the back of the map are false; and this I infer, not merely from an 
examination of the writings, but from the presence of the tide. First 
Geograplier of the King, which proves that this copy could not exist 
till after 1718, and in consequence, the individuals whose names these 
leUers bear, could not write in 1706 and 1707, and on which no 
writings could have been written by the Archbishop of Cambray." 

He also observes that two of the letters, one signed Philip Mallet, 
and another signed John Alexander, seemed to have been written in 
ink composed of China ink of yellow and of red. He observes under 
certain worde a reddish tint which springs out, and which seems to 
eliow that these documents might ''have been written with the ink 
composed of China ink, yellow and red; such ink is generally com- 
posed to imitate ancient writings, and in the use of which, it often 
happens that the reddish tint springs up when the ink is dried." He 
also observes that the map ia spotted in diilerent places with a reddish 
color, and that the mixture made use of in writing the map was 
spkisiied upon it. 

M- Jacoba, the French engraver, also testifies that the ink on the 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 21 

above named document is not such ink as is generally used. <*It 
is not ink which has turned old. I think it must be composed to imi- 
tate ink which, when turning old, assumes a brownish tint, and that 
the ink used here is for the purpose of imitation." All elicited from 
this witness, as to the genuineness of the writings, is as follows: 

"Q. — In forming a judgment from ink, and the appearance you 
have spoken to, should you say that these are genuine writings of the 
date they bear, or false writings? 

^'A. — I should think them false. 

"Q. — Judging from the ink ^alone and the appearance of these 
writings, putting all other evidence aside, would j^ou pronounce that 
the documents are true or false? 

'^A. — There would be a great presumption that they are all false; 
but that is all." 

Only two Scotch experts, Mr. Lizars and Mr. Smith, were exam- 
ined. Mr. ].(izars stated that there was "a great resemblance between 
the ink in the writing signed Ph. Mallet and the letter signed John Alex- 
ander," the two referred to by the two French experts, that it was 
^'like common water-paint." 

Mr. Smith, who was employed to make fac-similes of the map, 
stated that both the letters of Mallet* and Alexander were shaded, 
<'They resemble each other a good deal in color, but they are not 
exactly the same. There is a reddish line through them both." 

We have given here all the reasons and evidence urged to support 
the spuriousness of the multifarious writings. 

It must be borne in mind that only two witnesses on the trial ex- 
pressed an opinion against the genuineness of the writings; and these 
opinions, it will be seen, rested wliolly upon the apparent contradic- 
tion in the dates, the color of the ink, and the red shading under the 
letters on two only of the documents impeached. 

We shall now fully explain the contradictions of the dates, and 
destroy the grand objection, the "astounding fact," as Bhickwood calls 
it, upon which the accusation rested. We will establish by the very 
witnesses called for the Crown the genuineness of the documents. 
We will show by testimony judicially taken, but suppressed through 
tlie uufailhfuhiess or timidity of Lord Stirling's counsel, that all the 

*Mallct'3 note is written on the niup hadt'. and is not a letter, as stated in re|Jort. 



22 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

suspicious marks upon the documents were collusively placed there to 
give to them the appearance of forgeries. And, finally, we shall prove 
chat this map of Canada, containing on its back the various writings 
impeached, and declared to have been fabricated at Paris, in 1S37, 
existed with the same autographic documents more than thirty years 
before that date, and twenty years before Lord Stirling asserted his 
claims in Scotland. 

We shall not only refer to the evidence produced at the trial, but to 
documents and evidence, fully verified, obtained since the trial, and to 
testimony taken before the trial, and (.suppressed through the influence 
of the Crown. To understand the nature and value of the latter evi- 
dence, which has never before been published , and which throws such 
a flood of light upon this mysterious trial, it will be necessary for the 
reader to be informed as to the nature of a preliminary judicial exami- 
nation, unknown in our law, and cSiWed ?i preeogtiition. "This," 
says Bell, ''is an examination by the judge ordinary, or justices of the 
peace, where any crime has been committed, in order that the facts 
connected with the offence may be ascertained, and full and perfect 
information given to the public prosecutor, to enable him to prepare 
the hbel and carry on the prosecution." In this investigation the wit- 
nesses are not usually put on oath, and they must be examined sepa- 
rately. Nor is the accused or any person in his behalf admitted to be 
present when the precognition is taken. The testimony written down 
by the magistrate is also called a precognition. We have before us 
copies of the precognitions^ from which we shall quote, on stamped 
paper, dul}'' certified. 

Proceeding to analyze all this evidence, we shall show: 

1st. All the documents loritten on the back of the map of Canada 
wei'e believed to be genuine by the artists in Edinburgh who expressed 
any opinion upon them. 

William Home Lizars, a celebrated engraver at Edinburgh, after 
having examined the writings with great care, declares, "1 thought 
them genuine." 

''I have already said that I did not think them other than genuine. 
They appeared to be in a natural hand." (Examination during 
trial.) 

Samuel Leith, lithographer, Edinburgh, head partner of the firm of 
Leith and Smith, who had been employed by the oflicers of the Crown 
to make a fac-simile from the map and documents, declares, ''Gene- 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 23 

rally the writings on tlie map are free and unconstrained; and there is 
nothing in the writings, as they appear to have been originally execut- 
ed, to induce an opinion that they are forgeries." .And be begins by 
pointing out as genui?ie the principal document, which gives an analysis 
of the charter of Novo damns of 1639, an analysis made in 1706, and 
signed Ph. Mallet. (Precognition signed Samuel Leitb.) 

We have before us a certificate signed by H. Maxwell Tnglis that 
the copies ©f pvecogaitions, from which we quote, were read over t© 
the witnesses, and signed by them since the trial; so that they retain 
their opinions despite the verdict of the jury. 

2d. The writings 07i the map are in different hands. 

This is an important fact to be established, because Lord Stirling 
was accused of being the only falsifier, or at least to have had no ac- 
complice but a woman — MademoiselkLe Norman-d — from whosehands 
he received it. 

Archibald Bell;, lithographer and engraver^ Edinburgh^ though m 
the interest of the Crown, declared ^'^that these autographs on the map 
of Canada appeared to be written by separate hands ^ that by great 
study any one persan might by possibility have written the whole; bul 
this is not likely." Precognition not signed after trial. 

John Johnston, engraver and printer, equally interested in sparing 
the Crown lawyers, declares "that be does not think that any one indi- 
vidual could have written all the autographs on the map, and that 
Lord Stirling could not have done so." 

3d . The writings on the map hear no resemblance to the writing 
of Lord Stirling or that &f Mademoiselle Le Norniand. 

Three Scotch experts make this declaration on the trial and wlieB 
precognosed. 

William H. Lizars interrogated during the trial: 

Q. — For what purpose were they (the documents on the map) 
shown to you? 

A. — To compare them with Lord Stirling's handwriting and that 
of Mademoiselle Le Normandy and see if I could trace any simi- 
larity between their handwritings and the handwriting of the docu- 
ments. 

Q. — Did they appear to be in either of the handwritings with 
which you compared them? 

A. — The papers were shown to me by the Procurator-Fiscaij 



24 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

and the result of my opinion was, that tiio handwritings were not the 
same, I hat they bore no resemblance to each other. 

Archibald 13ell in his precognition declares, that he examined the 
writings on the back of the map, and compared them with Lord Stir- 
ling's writing, and could see no resemblance between them and his 
lordship's writing. 

John Johnston makes the same declaration. 

4th. 2Vie wj-itmg of Flecliicr, Bishop of Nismes, one of the docu- 
tnents on the tiiap, is proved to be authentic. 

The estal)lishment of the authenticity of a single writing on the map, 
referring to o'her writings, establishes the genuineness of all. 

John Johnson says, in his precognition, '-'the Bishop of Nismes's 
autograph appears to be all freely written, and not to be in any way 
painted," (referring to coloring on two of the documents.) 

This testimony supports that of two other experts, William Home 
Lizars and Samuel Leith, who declare that they believe "all the writ- 
ings genuine;" and is confirmed by that of Archibald Bell, that the 
autographs appeared to be written by different hands. 

This opinion of the four Edinburgh experts is fully confirmed by 
die evidence of an important French witness. 

The Baron Charles Herald de Pages, attached to the historical de- 
partment of the Royal Library in Paris, '^charged with the duty of 
examining manuscripts," being interrogated if he believed the auto- 
graph of Flechier genuine, ^'1 am certain of it." * * * ''This 
writing perfectly corresponds with that of a hundred letters of that 
Bishop, which are in the possession of my uncle, the Marquis of 
Yalfont." 

The Crown reports assume to give the examination of the witnesses' 
question and answer in totidem verbis. But in the report now before 
lis this important testimony, so material for the prisoner, which alone 
was sufficient to confound the charge of fabricating the documents of 
the map, is given in brackets, as follows: (''Being shown the map 
libelled on, the witness thought the writing thereon attributed to Fle- 
chier was conformable to the specimens he had brought with him.") 

An important circumstance deserves to be noticed. This witness 
produced a great number of undoubted and unsuspected specimens of 
Flechier 's handwriting. With such means of comparison the forgery 
of a document of over a hundred words could have been completely 
exposed. The production of the genuine handwritings of Flechier by 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 25 

this witness gave the Crown the means, and the only one, of estab- 
h'shing their charge. But not a word of suspicion as to the writing of 
Flechier was uttered at the trial by the Crown witnesses, lawyers, or 
judges. 

The witness, Baron de Pages, was asked by one of the judges, 
(Lord Moncrief,) ''If you were assured that the map shown you did 
not exist till 1718, would you still say thatthe writing was Flechier's?" 

A. — "Wherever it might be placed, I should say it resembled 
the other specimens of the handwritings of Flechier, whicli I have 
imder my eyes." 

^'Let me remind you," said the Judge, ''that Flechier died io 1710, 
and this paper had no existence till 1715," 

A. — "It would not be the less like." 

This witness, it may be remarked, testified that he had not known 
of Lord Stirling's case until ten days before he left Paris; in fact, he 
was a total stranger to Lord Stirling and his family. 

The handwriting of Flechier had received the attestation of M. 
Villenave, as follows: 

"Cette attestation est de la main de Esprit Flechier, Eveque de 
JNismes. 

"Paris, Aout 2, 1837. VILLENAVE." 

Thus was the handwriting of Flechier, upon a document which 
referred to the charter, and to the note of Mallet, suspected of being 
painted) established to be authentic by the testimony of four Scotch 
and two distinguished French experts; while with all the means at 
hand for exposing the spuriousness of the document, if it had been 
forged, not a shadow of suspicion was thrown upon it tit the trial. 
The following is the attestation in question, (translated:) 

"I have lately read in the house of M. Sartre, at Caveirac, the copy 
of the charter of the Earl of Stirling. I remarked in it many curious 
particulars, mixed up with a great number of uninteresting details. I 
therefore think that we ought to feel the greatest obligation to M. 
Mallet for having enabled the French public to judge, by the above 
note, of the extent and importance of the grants made to this Scotch 
nobleman. I find also that he has extracted the most essential clauses 
of the charter, and, in translating them into French, has given a very 
4 



26 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 



correct version of them. M. Caroii St. Estienne has requested me I© 
bear testimony to this. I do so with the greatest pleasure. 

(Signed) ^'ESPRIT, Bishop of Nismes, 

<^At Nismes, this 3d of .lune, ITOT." 

5th. The handivriting of Fenelon is proved to be authentic. 
An attestation to the genuineness of this writing, made by the Keeper- 
"General of the Archives of France, M. Daunou, a member of the 
Institute of France — a man who had been a member of ahwost every~ 
legislature of France since the revolution, and whose reputation as & 
scholar is European — ought to have been received as conclusive. 
[Nevertheless the Edinburgh jury did not appear to understand the^ 
value of this attestation, although it was confirmed by the Scotch wit- 
nesses, who declared that all the writings were genuine. 

It is said that the attestations of the distinguished men, Daunou and> 
Villenave^ although no doubt was expressed as to their attestationSj. . 
ivere not received as evidence because they were living, and coolcl 
have been produced. Good care had been taken, by refusing the- 
commission to verify the papers in France, and bringing on the trial in 
Edinburgh;, where men of their age and position could not attend, to 
deprive the accused of such testimony as would have established the 
case. Still this testimony, though excluded by technical rules of law, 
none the less exists, and is more conclusive as to the genuineness of 
the French documents than the verdicts of a hundred Scotch juries. 
6th. The handwriting of Louis XV is genuitie. 
M. Villenave had already certified the authenticity of the four Jines^ 
attributed to this monarch. The Scotch witnesses, who believed all 
the writings were genuine, gave to this attestation a force which Baron- 
De Pages still further increased. Being interrogated as to the writing 
attributed to Louis XV, he answered, "It is exactl}'^ Ijke the specimens. 
of his writing which I have brought with me." This witness then, 
produced notes written by Louis XV, Avhich he had brought from col- 
lections in Paris. The Crown ofiicers thus had the means of demon- 
strating beyond a qiiestion the spuriousness of this writing by compari- 
son with undoubted originals^ but, as in the case of Flechier, no 
attempt was made to expose the forgery by this means. With proof, 
so conclusive of the genuineness of three writings on the map, which, 
in fact, established the genuineness of the whole, we are utterly at a . 



TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 



2r 



loss to comprehend the verdict of the jury which declared the writ- 
ings forgeries. 

The jugglery by which this was accomplished can only be explained 
by supposing that the jury must have been confounded by the mena- 
cing attitude and pressure of the presiding Judge, who neglected no 
opportunity to drop his poisonous insinuations against the prisoner's 
cause. An instance occurred in the course of the examination of De 
Pages. Addressing this witness, Lord Meadowbank says, ''Do you 
know that Yoltaire says Louis XV never wrote but two words in his 
life/bon'and 'Louis?' " "Do you recollect Yoltaire saying that when 
he communicated with his mistresses he employed a secretary to write 
his billets?" The witness was notsufl&ciently self-possessed to reply, as 
the fact is, that nothing like this is to be found in Voltaire's writings! 
This is admitted in the Crown report. 

7th. All the iL-ritings on the map are of the epoch of their different 
dates. 

It was attempted on the trial to make much of the color of some of 
the words and letters. Upon this the French witness, Jacobs, rested hi^ 
unfavorable opinion . The Crown officers pretended to see in this color 
traces of a brush and a palpable proof of falsification and alteration. 

Mr. Lizars, one of the Crown witnesses, questioned by a juryman: 
^' Would age not have brought those two documents, the one signed 
Mallet, and the other signed Alexander, to the same color?" (Red 
color.) 

A. — "I imagine it would. 1 know that writings of that date are 
almost all of that color." 

John Johnston says, in his precognition: "He considers, from the 
form of the letters in these autographs, that they were written of the 
date they bear, and not of a more recent date." 

Archibald Bell declares, "They (the documents impeached) don't 
appear to be written of a recent date, but of the date they bear. ' ' The 
same witness declares, "that the length of time would give the docu- 
ments a cloudy appearance^" and "he could from their appearance 
have pointed out those which were of an ancient date from those of a 
recent date, (the modern attestations,) although he had not been told 
the date of either. 

8th. " The writings on the map have been painted over since theij 
left Lord Stirling's possession, for the purpose of giving them the. 

APPEARANCE OF, AND HAVING THEM DECLARED, FORGERIES." 



28 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

Let it not be forgotten that the only suspicious circumstances about 
the writings pretended to be discovered, independent of the apparent 
contradiction in the dates, are the color of the ink, the red shading of 
the letters on two of the writings, and the splashing of coloring matter 
on the map. Taking this into view, the testimony which we shall 
now give is of the utmost importance. 

Samuel Leith, lithographer, in his precognition formally declares: 
^'Map. Mallet's note. His opinion is this note is genuine, but 
thinks that some person has gone over the letters in it with a brush and 
coloring matter of a pink and brownish tint. This is evident from the 
coloring matter being spotted over the surface of the map, apart from, 
the writing. His opinion is that this has been done to give it the ap- 
jpearance of a forged document. This could not be done by a forger, 
as he would not leave so many indications of the material he had been 
using scattered about. If it had been done by him accidentally, he 
would have tried some means to have got these effaced. Moreover, 
*some of the lines are not gone over in this manner with the coloring 
matter, which corroborates his opinion, that some one must have gone 
over the writing with a coloring matter, and left these lines intention- 
ally, to give it the appearance of an ill executed forgery." He stated 
this to the Crown counsel, and was asked by them who he thought 
could have done this; and he said, ^^he was certain from the manner 
in which it had been done, that it must Iwive been done by the ene- 
mies of Lord Stirling." 

Letter of John Alexander. The same remarks apply to this letter^ 
but not in such a strong degree. 

^^ Note of Bishop of Nismes. There has been also tampering with this 
note, by the letters having been gone over here and there with a darker 
ink, and that this has been done some time after the original writing. 
If a person had been wishing to forge this document, there was no oc- 
casion for him to have gone over it in this way, which was the very 
means to make it appear a forgery. 

" Generally the writings on the map are free and unconstrained; and 
there is nothing in the writings, as they appear to have originally existed, 
to induce an opinion that they are forgeries. Acting on this opinion, 
he caused the lithographic copies of them to be made fac-similes of the 
writing in its natural state, without the tampering and vitiation above 
referred to." 

Now, in view of this grave charge ^ it is important to consider in 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 29 

whose hands this map had been placed since it was first exhibited by 
Lord Stirhngj and what opportunities this important witness Had for 
forming- the opinion given in his precognition. Ever since November 
27, 1837, the day on which Lord Stirhng's agent, Mr. Lockhart, 
though instructed merely to show the document and demand a com- 
mission to get it more fully proved in France, had allowed it to be 
seized by the court, it had remained in the custody of the clerk of the 
court. When the officers of State, seeing that, if acknowledged to be 
genuine, nothing remained but to recognise Lord Stirling's rights, had 
determined to make out the writings to be forgeries, the map was taken 
out of court and ordered to be lithographed. What object could there 
have been to makefac similes of, or to lithograph, an instrument which, 
if false, would show itself so on its face, except to secure by this means 
the opportunity for tampering w^ith the document which tjie accusers 
had so vital an interest in destroying? John Smith was charged with 
the delicate and important task of making thefac similes. Six months 
were occupied, or pretended to be occupied, in this work. To remove 
all appearance of suspicion, the court directed that the work should be 
done in the house of Mr. Mark Napier, a respectable advocate, who 
was directed to perform the impossible duty of being always present 
with the lithographer. The work was in the lithographer's hands 
some months before Mr. Leith made his precognition. Mr. Leith had 
every opportunity for inspecting it. He was head partner of the firm 
of Leith & Smith, as appears by Smith's testimony on the trial. His 
statement was no matter of opinion. He had seen and examined the 
map in its original state, when it was free from all suspicious marks, 
and he knew that it had been falsified and tampered with. The 
charge so boldly and uncompromisingly made by Mr. Leith in his pre- 
cognition, that the documents had been tampered w4th by " the ene- 
mies of Lord Stirling, to give them the appearance of forgeries," was 
a charge against Smith, as well as the agents of the Crown; for in 
their hands alone had the documents been placed, and the point of 
Leith's accusation was that they had been injured in Smith's hands. 
This charge, so disgraceful to the Crown agents, was well known in 
Edinburgh. Hence the questions put Smith on the trial by Mr. Innes, 
Crown counsel: " You were employed to make a fac simile from that 



map 



?" 



j.«_uYes. 



30 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

'^ Did you do anything to injure the appearance, or texture^ or color 
of the* paper?" 

^._uNo." 

Why were these questions asked, unless as an attempt at a weak re- 
sponse to the public report, that the map had been altered and tam- 
pered with. 

With so grave an accusation resting against the Crown agents, an 
accusation which they well knew, why did not the counsel save the 
honor of the Crown by confronting Leith and Smith in the witness box? 
Why did not the prosecuting of!icers prove the falsehood of this accu- 
sation, which had excited so much public indignation, by calling Mr. 
Mark Napier, at whose house Smith worked? Was it not because 
they dared not enter into this investigation? Was it not because Mr. 
Mark Napier had said that he ''no longer recognised the writings?" 

It is a significant fact, that Smith, the lithographer , immediately 
after the trial v/as appointed Crown printer; a place worth ^^2,500 a 
year, and never before conceded to a lithograplier. The public indig- 
nation, expressed by the papers of the time, showed that the motive for 
this appointment was fully understood. 

But the most deplorable and suspicious circumstance connected with 
the whole trial is the almost inconceivable fact that Samuel Leith, wha 
was in attendance in court, and whose name we find enrolled among' 
the defender's witnesses, loas not called by the defenders counsel. 
The testimony of the witness, who would have exposed the nefarious 
conspiracy, who would have turned the charge of fabrication from the 
accused to the accusers, was withheld to "save the honor of the Croion, 
compromised hij its agents.^'' This was Lord Stirling's counsel's only 
excuse for his conduct. It was reiterated by Lord Meadowbank, in ex- 
tenuation of his course, and repeated again in London as a reason for 
the deplorable excesses the Government had tolerated! 

But this was not the only case of the suppression of testimony for the 
defender. Archibald Bell, John Johnston, John Skirving, all scientific 
witnesses, who would have established the genuineness of the docu- 
ments and map, all of whom were in attendance, were not called. 
Indeed, of tiventy-one witnesses for the defence, six only were exam- 
ined. What can be hoped for in the best of causes when the interests 
of State demand a condemnation; when the accused, deprived of the 
ordinary defences enjoyed by a common felon, has only his innocence 
and right to shield him from the violence of power? 



TPJAL OP LORD STIRLING, 31 

A convincing proof that the cliarges of Leilh are true is the fact, that 
the officers of State and the court dare not allow the map to see the 
light. When the civil suit in which the map with its documents was 
filed was closed; Lord Stirling was entitled to reclaim his documentary- 
proof. He still desired to establish by further and cumulative evidence 
llie authenticity of his documents. He has applied for them in vain. 
The court, with that usurpation of power which they have again and 
again displayed in these proceedings, specially decreed -^the produc- 
tions in this process to remain in the hands of the clerk, and not to be 
borrowed by, or returned to, the defender till further order." 

9th. " The inap was of the date whicJi it bears, 1703, This is not 
contradicted hy the interpolation of the words, ^^ Premier Geographe 
du Roiy 

The point made out by the prosecution was, that De L'Isle did not 
receive this title tilf 1718. The map bearing tiiis title could not have 
existed till 1718. As Fenelon and Flechier died before that time, the 
documents on the map, purporting to be written by them, must have 
been forgeries. Herein lay the whole foundation of the impeachment 
of the writings upon the map. It is plain that the French witnesses 
based the opinions which they expressed at the trial wholly on this ap- 
parent inconsistency. To explain this, we will present some facts not 
brought out on the trial. 

Guillaume de L'Isle commenced his chief publications in 1700, and 
continued them to 1726. It was common at that time, as at present, 
under monarchies, for individuals to assume or obtain special titles, 
such as ^'Geographe ordinaire" to the King, "Maitre d'Hotel ordi- 
naire," "Medecin ordinaire." Under Louis XIV, there was a 
^•^Premier Aumonier," ^'Premier Maitre d'Hotel," ''Premier Gentil- 
homme," "Premier Medecin," ''Premier Peintre," and soon after 
''Premier Geographedu Roi." 

De L'Isle first called himself simply "Geographe." He so soon 
eclipsed all rivals, that he was named in 1702 "Member of the 
Academy of Sciences," A httle later, he gave lessons in geography to 
the young Prince, afterwards Louis XVj and on the 26th of August, 
1718, received a patent, conferring upon him a pension of 1200 livres, 
loith the title of "Premier Geographe, 'i which had not hitherto been 
conferred in so formal a manner. 

There is conclusive proof that the title of "Premier Geographe dis 
Hoi^" was borne by him at an earlier date than 1718. , 



32 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

At the library of St. Genevieve^ in Paris, is a rare work, entitled 
^^Memorials of the King's Commissioners, &c., upon the possessions 
and respective rights of the two Crowns in America, &c., published at 
Paris in 1755." On page 62, vol. 1, of this work, occurs the follow- 
ing^ passage on the subject of four French maps, presented against the 
pretensions of England to establish the ancient limits of Acadia. 

•^'The two first are those of M. de L'Isle; the one a map of North 
America, published in 1700, and the other, a map of Canada or new 
France, published in 1703." 

Farther on, at page 64, is the following: 

•'It appears that the first of the said maps of Sieur de L'Isle, is one 
which was particularl}^ corrected by himself, and that it was based upon 
the observations of the Royal Academy, of which he was one of the 
members at the publication of the latter, as well as "Premier 
Geographe du Roi," (dont il etait un des membres a la publication 
de sa derniere, ainsi que "Premier Geographe du Roi.") These ex- 
tracts are certified by the administrator of the library of St. Genevieve. 

Who, then, can doubt that De L'Isle, who in 1702 "had eclipsed 
all rivals," and who in 1703 was a member of the Academy of Sci- 
ences, who, at that time, was always consulted by the old King, and was 
employed as geographer at court, who was afterwards the instructor of 
the young Prince in geography, as may be seen by an historical memoir 
by Freret, was in fact authorized to call himself First Geographer of 
the King? This is not contradicted, but rather confirmed, hy the pa- 
tent of 1718. It is carefully kept out of view by Blackwood, as it was 
at the trial, that this patent was given to grant him apensio?i of 1200 
livres, and for this reason the title which he long enjoyed was more 
formally conferred. 

We have before us an original letter of M. Villenave, in which he 
says: "There are extant in France, in England, and most probably in 
the libraries of Edinburgh, mapsof Guillaume de L'Isle, of a date an- 
terior to 1718, and upon which Guillaume de L'Isle takes this double 
title, "De I'Academie des Sciences et Premier Geographe du Roi." 
1 have in my cabinet a very considerable number of these maps- 
Those of Canada, 1703; of Paraguay and Chili, 1703; of Peru,. 
Brazil, and the country of the Amazons, 1703; India and China, 1705;, 
Tartary, 1706; Barbary, Nigritia, and Guinea, 1707. Well, upon 
a?/ these maps anterior to 1718, are these words engraved, "Par Guilr 



TRIAL OK LORD STIRLTNG. J., 

laume ile 1,'Isle, de I'Academie des Sciences, Premier Geogmphe dii 
Roi." 

There are some of tfie maps of ilie date of 1703 without this title, 
and others with it. It is probable that De L'Isle placed the additional 
title which he was allowed (o assmne upon maps struck ofl', or printed 
after maps of the same date had been issued. Every artist and pub- 
lisher knows that changes and insertions are frequently made on maps 
while the original date is preserved. The old plates would be used 
again, or as ail Edinburgh witness offered to do, the engraving could 
have been made upon the map itself. The theory of the French wit- 
nesses, and of the Crown lawyers, that a map, which they say was not 
published till 1718, could bear the date of 1703, is absurd. Mr. 
J^eith, the lithographer, shows the absurdity of that theory in his pre- 
cognition. '^His opinion is, that the map was thrown olf in 1703. 
He says it would be perfect folly, and he could not believe that the 
publisher of the map would throw it off in 1718, with the addition of 
1703 on it. Every publisher la anxious to have the most recent date 
possible on his works, and would not throw off impressions with a date 
fifteen years preceding on them. This remark applies more especially 
to maps, and to the map in question, being of a country where geo- 
graphical discoveries, in ail probability, would have been made in the 
space of fifteen years." 

There is no doubt that the line Premier Geographe, &c., was inter- 
polated, probably by De L'Isle himself, after he had assumed the title 
which he took upon himself in 1703. The incriminated map of Can- 
ada has one peculiarity which has not been observed on other maps of 
Canada of the same date. The engraving or heading of the map is 
beautifully painted or illuminated^ which is only observed on ancient 
maps in royal keeping, or of which particular care is taken. Upon 
such a map especially would Be LTsle have placed the highest title 
which he had a right to assume, to give the map the greater authority^ 

The theory that the map was not in existence till 1718 is proved 
absurd by the French witness Jacobs. He acknowledges that many 
maps of De L'Isle have interpolations, like the one on the map in 
question; but, says he, " this interpolation only takes place on those 
maps, the date of which is anterior to 1718. In the maps published 
subsequently to 1718, there is no interpolation. The words first ge- 
ographer of the King are always regular with the other part of the 
title." Does not this prove that, whenever there are interpolations. 



34 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

they must have been made prior to 1718? Would the engraver have 
taken the trouble to interpolate awkwardly a title on the map, when 
at the same time he had a plate containing the words first geographer, 
&c., engraved regularly with the other parts of the title? 

The mismanagement of the defence was equally displayed in this 
as in other parts of the trial. The charge of falsification had no sup- 
port but in the assertion that it was impossible to have the four words, 
Premier Geographe du Roi, interpolated otherwise than by the original 
copper plate of the map. If this were possible, any possessor of the 
map could have procured the interpolation on the map itself before or 
after 1718, We, for ourselves, believe that the interpolation was made 
by De L'Isle himself on the original copper, on a fresh series struck 
ofi' by him soon after assuming the title, by which he became known 
in 1 703, But if this point could have been proved, the position of the 
Crown would have been untenable. It certainly should have been 
urged by the defence. 

John Skuving, punch-cutter and engraver, at his precognition pro- 
duced " a plate and three copies of a modern map of Turkey and 
Asia, in the titles of two of which he has inserted the last line from the 
aforesaid plate, as will be seen by a comparison of these two maps, in 
which the insertion is made with the remaining one. In like manner, 
he is of opinion that it was quite possible for Guillaume De L'Isle to 
have made the insertion of Premier Geographe du Roi in any of his 
maps after the impression had been thrown off, without throwing off 
an entire impression of the map. And if he had had a number of his 
maps of 1703, or any other date actually thrown off, it would have 
been a saving of expense to him to have put the addition of this 
tide on them in this manner, or he might have put it on any single 
map if he had been requested, or had occasion to do so. The inser- 
tion could also have been made in another and a very simple form, 
and which, he thinks, no French artist or engraver could be ignorant 
of, especially an extensive publisher of maps, such as De L'Isle, and 
that is by means of an operation of tissue, which he can explain if 
necessary. 

(Signed) JOHN SKIRVING." 

This witness, though in attendance, was not called! 

John Johnston, Crown witness, who had expressed an opinion in 
his precognition that the words were inserted on the paper itself with- 
out the aid of plate, was not called! 



TRIAL OP LORD STIRLING. 35 

No one of the Scotch witnesses was examined upon this important 
point which formed the basis of the accusation. 

Jacobs, the French ene^raver, tliought it could be done, but doubted 
if any method was known at the period of the map. Yei there are 
whole mnps of the time traced so as to look like engravings; and all 
the geographers consulted in Paris by Lord Stirling, state the operation 
to be both frequent and easy, and to their knowledge of ancient date. 

Our readers, who have followed us thus far, must have seen how 
signally the officers of the Grown failed to prove the fabrication of the 
documents impeached; and they must also have seen how completely 
the prosecution would have been overwhelmed, if the counsel for the 
defence had done their duty. But it was from no want of zeal or in- 
dustry, or from any niggardliness in the expenditure of money, that 
Crown agents failed to make out a belter case. As we shall have no 
farther occasion to discuss the testimony given in this part of the case, 
we will pause for a moment to consider the character of the witnesses 
produced by the Crown. Here we shall depart somewhat from the 
rule to which we have thus far rigorously adhered, of stating nothing 
for which we had not full documentary proof. But the statements we 
shall now make have been published in England, and have never 
been denied. 

When Messrs. Innes and Mackenzie, the Crown agents, who had 
proceeded to Paris to get up their case, " found it impossible to corrupt 
Messrs. Daunou and Villenave," (Mr. Villenave's own words now be- 
fore us,) and were at a loss how to proceed, they placed their desperate 
case in the hands of a man more notorious in the annals of police and 
crime than any other in Europe, the infamous Vidocrj. He made up 
for them the amalgamation of scientific and ignorant witnesses; the 
two first, Teulet and Jacobs; the three latter, a cobbler, a hawker, and 
a street prostitute, who, under the care of a French policeman, figured 
for some weeks in Edinburgh. 

The " eminent" M. Teulet, as Blackwood calls him, was picked 
out of the archives of which Daunou was chief. His testimony, weak- 
ened beforehand by the counter attesiation of his chief, v»'as completely 
neutralized by that of the Baron de Pages, who held an official posi- 
tion in the Royal Library, which gave to his opinion an authority at 
least equal to that of M. Teulet. Boih the French witnesses for the 
Crown threw themselves at once on (he dubious (juibble of the offi- 
cers of State, that the writings could not have been placed on tlie map 



36 TRIAL OF LORIJ STIRLING. 

until after August, 1718; when that falls to the ground, their testimony 
falls with it. 

Teulet, we are assured, felt that he had compromised his position 
hy lending himself so freely lo the Crown agents, and in a letter, ad- 
dressed from Edinburgh to his brother, stated his surprise at finding 
that Lord Stirling, who had been represented to him in the blackest 
colors, was a most honorable man; and he further expressed doubts and 
misgivings as to his own position in the affair. 

Of the other French witnesses, the cobbler, the hawker, and the 
prostitute, little need be said. They were all under the surveillance 
of the French police for crimes committed by them, a|id were accom- 
panied to Edinburgh by a police officer, who had strict orders never to 
lose sight of them. The hawker was picked out of the street, set up 
in a harnlsonie shop a-s a seller of gentlemen's hats and caps, until the 
trial w&s oyer, when he returned to hjs old trade of selling books, 
prints, &c., under the wall of an hotel on the Q,uai Voltaire. He was 
(o swear (iiat he sold a map or maps of De L'Isle to some one in 1837. 
In his precognition he insisted that it was in 1827 that Jie sold it. He 
wanted further diilling. When asked at the trial if hoyd Stirling was 
the man, he answered "No," and described quite a different person. 

The cobbler and the girl were to swear to seeing Lord Stirling come 
every night to Mad'elle Lenormand's house in the rue de Tournon. 
The cobbler swore with a vengeance, for he declared he had seen Lord 
Stirling at ihe house referred to jahnost every night from May to No- 
vember, 1837. This he repeated and insisted on. As it happened, in 
fact, Lord Stirling left Paris earl}^ in Aiigust, was present and voted 
at the election of Scotch peers on the 25lh of that month, and con- 
tinued to reside in Edinburgh until after the trial. 

The girl was not called, because, having sijice her arrival followed 
h.er vocation by committing a robbery in the house wiiere she lodged, 
the Crown counsel thought it prudent to withdraw her. The Crown 
agents compounded the felony, and got her off. And as they feared 
that some proceedings might be commenced against the whole of their 
witnesses, they w.ere all summarily ordered away before the trial 
actually terminated. 

Lord Stirling brought oyer liis landlord, ]\(lr. Benner, an English 
professor, wiio kept ari establishment for education, to prove that Lord 
Stirling was never out but once in an evening, and then to take tea 
with some friejids in the neighborhood. And that so I'ar from goinc to 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. d / 

ihe rue de Tournoii to aid in forging a paper, he was rarely ever ab- 
sent long enough from the house to admit of his going to that distant 
quarter of the city. We have the precognition and atfidavit of Mr, 
Benner which establish all these facts. But with their usual tender- 
ness for ihe Crown cause, Ijord Stirling's counsel refused to call this 
witness. 

These disreputable witnesses were furnished by Vidocq, and paid — 
as was drawn out on the trial — 1,000 franks a month, besides all their 
expenses, (the cobbler had worked the year before for 200 franks a 
year,) were dressed up for the occasion, paraded about the town, taken 
to the theatre, invited by ladies of the Crown lawyers to tea parties, 
all the time accompanied by the police agent. 

10th. Tlie incriminated map and writing's bear intrinsic evidence 
of authenticity. 

Every bank teller, writing master, or lithographer, in short, any ex- 
pert in writing — and to such men we appeal — knows that it is almost 
impossible to forge a single signature, which of course is copied, so per- 
fectly that it cannot be detected. When the forgery extends even to 
the simple copying of a long writing, the difficulty of fabrication is 
vastly increased. Extend the forgery to a dozen copies of different 
writings, and we believe that any expert will say, that it is impossible 
to make a fabrication which cannot be instantly detected. There are 
seventeen different writings, containing eighteen hundred and seventy- 
three words. But the remarkable fact is, these documents are not 
copies. They are originals, written in various places in France and 
Rngland. If this is a forgery, it is not a forgery of imitation, which 
we assert would be impossible; it is a forgery of creation. Now, not a 
fault can be found with the contents or arrangement of these docu- 
ments. The most trifling error has not been detected in a long series 
of facts in a multitude of dates, in the names of persons and places be- 
longing to France, Scotland, Ireland, and North America. Such a 
forgery demanded a man possessed of an imagination capable of in- 
venting historical documents, writing them in Latin, English, and 
French, and seizing at the same time the variations of three languages 
during the lapse of a century. It required a man learned in archaeology, 
in heraldry, in geography, in literary history, and at the same time 
possessing a caligraphic skill such as has never been conceived of. 
In short, the forger must have been a man of luiiversal knowledge. 
And yet if wc are to believe the verdict of the Edinburgh jury, it is 



38 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

easier to believe such a miracle, than to suppose there has been a mis- 
take as to the date of placing the words, < 'first geographer of the 
King," on the map. 

But we prefer to give the views of M. Villenave upon this point. 
We give an extract from a letter addressed by him to Lord Stirling, 
to whom he was an entire stranger, dated from Paris, April 19, 1839. 

^'My Lord: If the letter you did me the honor of writing to me on 
die 27th February, has hitherto remained unanswered, it is because I 
am even low hardly recovered after a long and cruel malady, which 
placed my life in danger. 

"It was not without the deepest astonishment that 1 learned the sad 
catastrophe by which it was desired to bring your law suit to a conclusion. 

"You are accused of having fabricated, or caused to be fabricated, 
all the writings which cover the back of a map of Canada. Permit 
me, my Lord, to say, that if they thus attack your honor, they ascribe 
to your intelligence an immense and gigantic extent; for, whoever will 
attentively examine all the vast composition of the pretended forgery, 
the divers contextures of the characters, the perfect conformity of the 
writing of Fenelon, Flechier, and Louis XV, with other autograph 
documents of those three personages; if they will also examine the 
historical part, the ensemble, and all the details, they must be con- 
vinced that the art of the forger cannot extend so far. All the science 
of the ^ Antiquary^ of Walter Scott would not have sufficed for so won- 
derful a work; and I doubt whether the 'Savans' of the Edinburgh 
society, so justly renowned in the hterary world, would, if they were 
consulted, affirm that they would be capable of imagining and arrang- 
ing such a composition; for, it is more easy to scale the Heavens, or 
to penetrate into the depths of the philosophical sciences, than to give 
to a great ensemble of falsehoods, and of supposed facts, an air of truth. 

"I was asked to certify the authenticity of the writing of Flechier, 
and of the three or four lines of Louis XV; I compared them, and 
could not hesitate to give my attestation. The illustrious Monsieur 
Daunou, member of the institute, keeper of the archives of the king- 
dom, has likewise certified the authenticity of the writing of Fenelon. 
Now, it would result from the verification of the artists of Scotland, 
that the keeper of the archives and I must have been deceived, and 
that the writings, certified by us as authentic, must have been forged by 
you, my Lord, assisted by a lady, and by an illiterate young man, 
whom you must have set to the work. 



TRIAL CF LOEL. STIKLDCG. 39 

••It may be said liiai this df^-cmon is audacioti?. and ^v^^i bur- 
iesque/' 

•'•WeJl, noTs-j Trhat can ue proved by ihe depc^sitioos of a seirajii 
giri ax»d a porter, to make out that it tjtss tou- my Lord. Tsrbo fabri- 
caied. -R-ith vour felloTft'-laborers. a "sroman and an tmlettered rouaef 
man. a -srork; the very conception and exectiuon of ■vvlaioh would bare 
embarrassed a "R'bole academ}'? 

'-And of "what use can be other subaltem •writnessesj ■vrithoot ralne 
and Taiibout ambority. on the foundation eren of the question? For 
exaajpie, Trbat impons ii -w-bence canie the map thus covered with 
documenls? Since -wbat period bag ii been held neces^JT; ander a 
penalty of being a foi^ref; to prove the orifin of a ycnikis or document 
that it prodticed. the fi^rgeri" of Vi'bicL cannot be proved?*' 

*-'lt it contended tbat tbe pretended ioiger-E of ibe map bare betrayed 
tbemseiveB by too much precaution- I cannot see that: I sbouid, in- 
deed, see the contrary if 1 admitted tbe isIsiScation: for "srould it Bctf 
have been great unskHfuInes to make Mr. Alexander -write to the 
Marcbionesc de lismbert. -I bave so liitie ides, st present that tbe titles 
and estaiet of tne Stirling farriJy can devolve upon my cMidren. that I 
bave encouraged tbe taste of mj son for tbe rninis try of our ehurch <rf 
ScotiSjjd. and be i? prezsjing bimBeif in Holland; at tbe University of 
Lie}"uer^" Assuredly ibis passage alone would su^ce to confound tbe 
accu^tion. 

"Your lawsuit, mj Lord, wiil l:^ve its place^ and be re-eeboed ie. 
the jages of kistory, 

•'-•Even if I did not believe in your loysitj 2nd h/yixx. it would be 
impo^ble for me to believe in tbe vsst genius wbicb would attribute 
to 3'ou. if it were well founded, tbe fabrication of tbe nKp of Canada. 

- -'The accusLiion must necesrauily fail, if it be examined from tbe 
origin and as a whole. All tbe minor details ought to be overlooked 
in tbe grandeur of this cause. 

-•Be pissed to accept^ mj Lord; witb the expression of m}- wishes, 
thai of my most diaingukbed consideration. 

(Signed, " ■•TILLE>'AV£; 

'■■Ex-Proffssor uf tiut. IM^snxry History vf Fraartoe at tlt^ 
Koyul Mitsrtxsrum. ^ vn/j. vf iJri^ Presi£fe»£s of Uvt. Hisiori- 
callnsiityii.^ drC; ^c. 



40 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

The reader will judge of tlie weight lo be given lo Mr. Villenave's 
letter by the following letter from Professor C. C. Jewett, the accom- 
plished Librarian of the Smithsonian Institution, addressed to Lord Stir" 
ling's counsel; 

■^'Smithsonian Institution, August 29, 1853. 
"John L. Hayes, Esq., 

''Dear Sir: I have this morning received 5'our letter, making in- 
quiry respecting the literary standing of Mr. Villenave, late President 
of the 'Institut Historique,' and (he value of his opinion relative to 
the genuineness of ancient French autographs: 

''I cannot perhaps do better than refer you, in reply, to the follow- 
ing works of standard bibliographical authority, namely, 'La France 
Litteraire, parM.J.M. Q,uerard,' art., Villenave, (Mathieu Guillaume 
Therese,) tome 10, pp. 183 — 188; and the 'Manuel de I'Amateur 
d'Autographes, par P. Jul. Fontaine," pp. 343 — 350. 

^'M. Querard gives a biographical notice of M. Villenave, assign- 
ing him a high rank as a literary man. He was the founder and editor 
of several influential journals, in the charge of one of which (Le 
Coiirrier) he was associated with M. Guizot. He was one of the edi- 
tors of the 'Biographic Universelle,' to which he contributed not less 
than three hundred articles. In connexion with M. Depping he edited 
the 'Collection des Prosateurs Franpais.' He furnished most of the 
biographical articles in the 'Encyclopedic des Gens du Monde.' He 
wrote a translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses,' which was published, 
with the original text, in an elegant edition, in 4 volumes, 4to, by 
Didot, 1807-1822. He also wrote a translation in prose of the first 
eight books of the ^neid of Virgil, which was published, (with a 
translation of the last four books by M. Aman, and the Latin text) in 
1832, in 3 vols., 8vo. 

"The list of the publications of M. Villenave occupies eight columns 
of the work of Q,uerard. They consist of poems, academical dis- 
courses, political pamphlets, and works mostly in the departments of 
literary history, bibliography, and biography. M. Villenave was 
General Secretary of the Celtic Society, and of the Royal Society of 
Antiquaries, President of the Philotechnic Society, Vice President of 
the Society of Christian Morals, and President of the Second Class of 
the Historical Institute. His reputation is that of a learned, labo- 
rious, and conscientious scholar, and of an amiable and modest man. 
He possessed a valuable library, rich in literary history, and in works 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLIXG. 41 

relating to the first French revolution. He was a most indefatigable^ 
intelligent, and successful collector of autographs. M-. Fontaine 
makes frequent mention of hiin in the work above named^and devotes 
a greater space to his collection than to that of any other individual. 
He calls it a ^veritable musee autographique/ a'vaste' collection. He 
seems to regard it as the most important private collection in France. 

'^I suppose that there is no man in France whose judgment on mat- 
ters relating to the genuineness of autographic writings, particularly 
those of French sovereigns and 'savaiis,' is entitled to be received with 
greater confidence than that of M. Yillenave. 

''Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

(Signed) '-G. C. JEWETT." 

11. The incriminated mao vas Jmown and described long before 
the period ichen Lord Stirling's accusers pretend it first received the 
xcritings which cover its back. 

One of the arguments adduced against the authenticity of the docu- 
ments was that the counsel for the defence could not show who had 
been tlie last, possessor of the map so richly clothed with autographs, 
nor determine precisely its origin, or how it came into the hands of the 
person who enabled the Earl of Stirling to produce it in the Civil 
court. It cannot he doubted that if the Earl could there liave shovv^n 
that it had been for a long time in the possession of some respectable 
person, from whose deed-chest it had been drawn and transmitted to 
him, no suspicion could have rested upon the document. But is it 
reasonable to declare a docitment, bearing upon its face all the charac- 
ters of authenticity, a fabrication or forgery, because ail the proof of 
former custody is wanting? Such a doctrine would compel us to reject 
the greater number of historical facts, which are received without 
doubt as to their truth. Such a doctrine would compel us to reject 
even the gospel itself j for who can point out its material origin in the 
Christian world; how,' where, and at what precise time it was written? 
The material proof is certainly wanting of the origin of the books of 
the Bible. But no man could have fabricated the divine volume. We 
make the comparison reverently. No forger could have fabricated the 
documents on the map of De L'Isle. But, although the veil which 
covers the details of a historical fact be not fully raised, the fact does 
not the less remain established. 

Lord Stirling being compelled by the passionate resistance of his 
6 



42 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

enemies to add new light to the light of evidence, discovered that an 
English gentleman of the name of Rowland Otto Bayer, prisoner of 
war in France during the Empire, had died at Verdun in 1805; and 
that in a hordereau or list of papers found at his lodgings, and deliv- 
ered to M. Gorneau, bearer of a power of attorney from Mr. Christie, 
of English descent, and the friend of tiie deceased, was written what 
follows. We translate from the French: 

No. 1. Letter of M. Orsel, de Paris, dated 2d Januaiy, 1S03. 

No. 2. Copy of a letter lo M. Bilhard, of 2Sth June, 1S04. 

No. 3. Map of Canada, or New France, by Guillaume De L'lsle.- 

On the back of this map are several documents, viz: an epitaph in 
English, an original letter of J. Alexander, with a marginal note by 
Fenelon; a note by the traveller Mallet; some attestations, &c. 

No, 4. A map of the world, colored. And below this list we read: 

''For us as a legal act, certified literal, and conformable to the ori- 
ginal. The officer;, Secretary of the Fortress of Verdun. 

(Signed) '''PARMENTIER.'* 

' 'Verdun, 6th May, 180T. 

'''No. 420. Seen by me, artist verifier of writings. 

(Signed) "H. MARTIN. 

"Seal of the Minister of War. " 

"Seen by the chief of the recruiting office and military justice, 
(Signed) PETITET." 

''By order of the Minister Secretary of State for War, the Counsellor' 
of State, director-general of the control of centralization and audit 
certified by me, the signature of M. Parmentier attached on the other 
-side in the quality of secretary of the fortress of Verdun. 

(Signed) "MARTINEAU. 

"Paris, 22d December, 1838." 

This document, supported as it is by other circumstances which we 
shall detail, proves beyond question that the map with its documents 
described in the "bordereau'''' of the Englishman, Rowland Otto Bayer, 
who died a prisoner of war at Verdun, 1805, is absolutely the same 
which figured at the criminal trial in Edinburgh. This being proved, 
the map could not, in spite of the testimony of the cobbler, hawker, 
&,c., have been fabricated at Paris in 1836 and 1837, to meet the exi- 
gencies of Lord Stirling's case. We have the copy of the inventory^ 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 43^ 

-describing this map^ certified on May 6, 1807, by Parmentier, the sec- 
retary of the fortress of Verdun. We have the attestation of the Coun- 
sellor of State and Minister of War, M. Martineau, that the signature 
of Parmentier is genuine; and that he made this signature on the Gtli 
■of May, 1807, in the quahty of secretary of the fortress of Verdun. 

With this proof, of what account are the testimony of the Scotch and 
French witnesses, or the judgment of the Edinburgh jury? 

This important document was authenticated at Paris by the Minister 
of War on the 22d December, 1838, a little over four months before 
the close of the trial at Edinburgh. The counsel for the defence 
advised Lord Stirling that before producing this document, if not neces- 
sary, ii woul3 at least be desirable to add other proofs to the attcstatioa 
of the Minister of War. Lord Stirling, knowing well all the difficulties 
which would be raised in his case, allowed himself to be persuaded 
that if he could supply the proof which was wanting of the presence 
of the name of Rowland Otto Bayer upon the lists of the prisoners of 
war, the document signed Parmentier, and recognised by the Minister 
of War as authentic, would have authority so great as to resist every 
objection. He knew that the prosecution did not scruple to call every 
writing produced by him a forgery. He feared that they even might 
dare to attack a document certified by a French Counsellor of State, 
as they had suspected one attested hy the Keeper General of the Ar- 
chives of the Kingdom. 

Most unfortunately the Verdun document, authenticated in PariSy 
was sent back to France some time before the commencement of the 
trial, and when it was returned to Edinburgh, the judgment in the 
forgery trial had been pronounced. When Lord Stirling was restored 
to freedom, he ordered new searches to be made in Verdun and Paris, 
which were prolonged until the month of June, 1841. 

On the 1th of February of that year, an acquaintance of the Earl 
of Stirling, Mr. William Benner, wrote to the Minister of War ta 
inquire whether, in the archives of his administration, a detailed in- 
ventory of the effects which had belonged to Rowland Otto Bayer 
could be found; and applied for a copy of it. The following was the 
answer: 

^•' The Minister Secretary of War informs Mr. William Benner, in 
reply to his inquiries, having for object to obtain a copy of the inven- 
tory believed to have been drawn up at Verdun of the effects belonging 
to Mr. Rowland Otto Baijer, who died in 1805, in that town, being 



44 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING, 

tfien a priyoiier of war, that there has not been found in the archives 
of the Ministry, either any inventory (besides the bordereau) or extract 
from the register of deaths applicable to Mr. Rowland Otto Bayer, 
and that the name is not inscribed on the list of prisoners in said 
town." 

This indeed seems a fatal answer. But let us not prejudge too 
hastily, for the Minister of War immediately adds: 

^'But it results from a letter dated from Verdun, on the 30th Messi- 
dor, without indication of the j^ear, b)^ a Mr. Rowland Otto Bayer, 
written for the purpose of obtaim'ng permission to see his daughter, 
then eighteen years old, and a boarder in the house of the Ladies 
Green, living on the rampart Cauchoise, at Rouen, that wl>en he was 
residing at Paris, in the house of Madame Piement, rue de la Loi, ho- 
tel du Cercle, he had been in consequence of a decree of the govern- 
ment made a prisoner of war, and obliged first to proceed to Fontain- 
bleau, and afterwards to Verdun. 

^'^For the minister, and by iiis order, the Councillor of State, general 
secretary. 

(Signed) ^'MARTINEAU." 

The fact that Bayer's name is not inscribed upon the lists of prison- 
ers of war was known to Lord Stirling before the trial. For this rea- 
son he was induced to defer the production of the bordereau, as he 
knew that the absence of Bayer's name from the lists of prisoners 
would be objected against the document. It was only on the 4th of 
February, 1841 , nearly two years after the trial, that this matter was 
cleared up, and proof obtained that Bayer was in facta prisoner of war 
at Verdun, although his name was not on the lists. 

It was only on the 22d of May, 1841, that the mayor of Verdun, 
M. Tapinier, wrote to another acquaintance of Lord Stirling, that the 
seals had been put on the effects of Mr. Rowland Otto Baijer after his 
death, the 30th Floreal, year XIII, (20th of May, 1805,) and that a 
proces verbal of the removal of the seal followed on the 7th Praireal, 
(27th May.) 

Lord Stirling was advised to make inquiries respecting any English 
detenus who might be still living in France, and who might furnish 
further information rehitive to Mr. Bayer. His London solicitor, 
while making inquiries at Brighton, ascertained that the hotel d'Angle- 
terre, at Dieppe, was kept by an old man named Willoughby Taylor, 



rni\L OF xoRD H'riKLiso. 4Jy 

who had been a prisoner at Verdun. A letter of inquiry wa» add reg^xd 
to Mr. Taylor, and the following reply received. We have now the 
original before us, with the po-it-rnarkH and gtarnps, which attest its 
autheniicity, as abo those of Lord Stirling's sKjlicitor-j. 

HoTf:L D'AxGLETERfcE, DiEi'PK, 3Iarch 2b; J 842. 
'^Sir: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your lettef, and in reply 
to inform you that I knew Mr. Rowland Otto Bayer very well. I 
kept an hotel at Verdun, and Mr. R. O. B. frequented my house. I 
was likewi?^ in the habit of supplying him with difierent ariJcleg a,thL«s 
house; he generally' settled hb account every week. On one occasion 
that I called u^jn hirn for that purpose, I perfectly recollect ^eing a 
very old rnap, wiib r-fome writing? on the ba/;k of it. It wa? partly 
folded up. 1 am not av/are of what country it wa.i;_, not having taken 
particular notice of it. Thb is all tlie information J can give you; I 
think I should recollect the rnap again if I were t<j see it. 
*-I arn. sir. your obedient senant, 
^'Signed; '-WlLLOUGHBy 7"AYL0R.^' 

Unfortun^ly there was no means of taking Mr, Taylor's testimony 
to be available in British c<>urts without commencing cert>ain proceed- 
ings in chancer)", the expenses of which, as the i>:*ndon solicitx:>rs my 
in their letters, would amount to some hundred j>oand*. While the 
expediency' of taking this course wa,s under deliberation, Mr. Taylor 
died. 

Mr. Eugene Alexander, a son of L*ord Stirling, in the n^ean time, 
had visited 3Ir. Taylor, and exhibited to him a fa« simile of the map, 
which he immediately recognised, particularly from the copy of the 
iascription of John Alexander- as being one he had seen in possessiori 
of ?»Jr. Bayer. The statement of 3Ir. Alexander, written dovm at the 
time, we refmin for obvious reasons from giving: a,nd a^dd a copy of a 
letter, authenticated by post-rnarks, =^amps, <fcc.- received by 3Ir. £. 
Alexander while residing in Lwadon, from 31rs, Taylor, after tlie dealh 
of her husband. 

'•Hotel n'AisGLEm^RnEj DiefpK; Juit/ 7, 1847. 
•- Sie: In rej^y to yottr inquiries 1 t>eg to ^y, that my late husband, 
Mr. Willoughb;,- Taylor, used frequently to talk about th^e ancierit map 
covered wiiii writinp on the back- which he had seen dorii^ hb de- 
tention at Verdan, in tlie possesk^i of Mr. Otto Bsy^. who died there 



^" TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

in 1805; and when you passed through our town in May, 1842, on 
your way to Paris^ and showed him the/ac simile copy of the writings^ 
lie at once recognised it as the exact copy of those on tiie map he had 
remarked in Mr. Otto Bayer's lodgings. I hope this information may 
prove of use to you; it is all fcan state on the subject. 
''I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
(Signed)' ''ANN TAYLOR." 

Tlie results of these searches and correspondence may be summed 
lip as follows: 

1. The Englishman, Rowland Otto Bayer, was a prisoner of war at 
Yerdun in the year 1805. 

2. He died there at that period. 

3. The bordereau drawn up by the secretary of the fortress of Yer- 
dun the 6th May, 1807, proves that the copy of the map of Canada, 
which Lord Stirling was accused of forging at Paris in 1836-'7, was in 
1805, thirty years before, in possession of Rowland Otto Bayer. 

5. These facts, established by complete documentary proof, are con- 
firmed by the statements of Mr. VVilloughby Taylor. 

With this convincing proof of former custody of the map and docu- 
ments, the last pretence of forgery vanishes, and with it the whole 
fabric of surmisings and inventions with which it was so flimsilj- 
interlaced. 

The question will be asked: How came the map into the possession 
of M'elle Lenormand? 

The mystery which rests upon the former custody of this map can- 
not be fully explained, nor is it necessary that it should be explained 
to establish the genuineness of the map and documents, the only point 
in question. 

M'elle Lenormand, who was by no means a mere fortune-teller 
as represented at the trial, but a woman of distinguished literary at- 
tainments, and of unsullied private character, who had been consulted 
by Napoleon, the Emperor Alexander, and most of the great person- 
ages in Europe, (see her life and memoirs published since her death 
by M. Cellier du Fayel, professor of law and moral philosophy,) had 
undertaken to aid Lord Stirling in researches for documents in France. 
There was every reason for believing that some of the more ancient 
documents or records referring to the Stirling family might be discov- 
ered in France; as the French had taken possession of the old fort at 



TRIAL. OF LOED STIEXLN'G. 4/ 

Pori Roval, biiili by Sir Wm. Alexander, and occupied bj bis 5on. 
and afier the surrender of Soxa. Scotia lo England by the French, all 
the Aeadian documents had been earned to France. The extraor- 
dinary facilities posses-ed hr the remarkable woman Tvho fii^ures in. 
this transaction, for commanicating "nith people of ail cla&ses in Paris, 
naturally suggested her as one^ among many employed on the ^rae 
workjWho might aid Lord Stirling in his researches. 

31"elle Lenormand had been warmly attached to the Bonrbons. She 
was among the few Royalists who had escaped the massacres of the 
reign of terror. It is well known that among those who also escaped 
was Josephine, wife of the Marqnis de Beauhamois, afterwards Em- 
jH-ess of France/ who. from sympathy in their early misfortunes- alwars 
pr^erved a warm friendship for 31'elle Lenormand. This remarkable 
woman afterwards repaid the feror Teceired from Josephine^ bv 
writing the best- memoir extant of the tmfortTinaie Empress. Amono- 
others of the R-oyalisLs who escaped — and in this circle of the old aris- 
tocracy jl'eUe Lenormand was admitted on the most familiar terms 

was the Princess de B**^. one cf the old noblesse, who had been 
much indebted to 3i"elie Lenormand for kindness daringr the tenible 
'jials of the rerolatioD- At her house one even in g. pre'doas to 1S37- 
31'elle met Prince Talleymnd. At this interriew, the sobject of Lord 
Siiriing's claims, which had already attracted great interest in French 
society, was the subject of oonrei^lioii. Shortly after this iBterrlew 
the map came into 3I'elle Lenonnand's possession. Of ail these di- 
cnmstacces there are no other proofs, than that lady's repeated declara- 
tioo - and we desire our readers to make the jost distinction between this 
part of onr najratiTe^ in which we tradenake to sixe only the rumois 
in French society^ and the xiews and declarations of Lord StirHno- and 
his Siends. and the statements supported by atitheniic proofs which we 
haxe before made. 

When the map was shown to Lord Stirling 'bj M'elle Ler:—' c" : . 
he icid her thai he cotild acc-ept of no such docnment from fcr ; ;_ i -. : -. . 
nnles he isad distinctpxwfe of ife former ccstcMly- She the:, ; ::. ::.ed- 
and sfterwards made a deposition tmder oath to that ef ec:^. :i.l: the 
Qocijment was sent to her throTigh. the agency of Prince TaileTrand. 
M'eiJe Lei:;m = nd always manifested a great ea^emes to hare a com- 
missi': n in France lo Terifr the dc'cnmeL:. :: :: haTe its authenticity 
csiabldshed befcre h iri^ziizl in FiBuce. L::::;:Lg to the adrice cf the 
Dean cf the French a-dvoDaies. The ille^sl cc^irse c-i the S'^ich 



48 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

courts, in refusing a commission to France, prevented Lord Stirling 
from obtaining the proofs of former ownership, and M'elie LenormJind> 
being sevenly-six years old, could not undertake a journey to Edin- 
burgh to testify at the trial. 

Some facts must be borne in mind which will throw light on the iiis- 
tory of this document previous to 1839. This map of Canada was 
beautifully painted arounid the title, as maps are whicli are in royal 
keeping. Again, it contains among other writings a note of Louis 
XV. It is therefore probable, that this map was preserved at the royal 
residence of Versailles. At the sacking of the Palace, it without doubt 
came inlo other hands, with a multitude of other relics and documents, 
which were afterwards sold as curiosities. Thus it came into the 
hands of Mr, R. O. Bayer, and at his death was probably bought for 
the Government, and deposited in the American archives in Paris. 

Now, it is a remarkable circumstance, that about the very time of 
tiie discover}^ of this map in Lenormand's hands in 1837, a document 
was stolen or removed from these very archives. This fact was after- 
wards communicated to Lord Stirling by Baron de Pages, and other 
gentlemen, with a recommendation to use eveiy means to verify the 
identity. It is needless to say that no means were left untried. The 
best influence — both English and French — was brought to bear, not 
oi^y upon the officers attached to the archives, but also upofe the Min- 
isters and the late King. But the office had been closed to all re- 
search, and the most absolute refusals were given in every instance, 
even though a demand was made to verify that the map of Canada was 
not the document so lost. The only reason assigned by several dis- 
tinguished persons in France for the refusal to interfere in the matter 
was, that the King's Government had been extremely annoyed by re- 
monstrances made to it by the British Government, which had accused 
it of extending aid and giving up documents to Lord Stirling, with a 
view to disturb the peaceful relations existing between Great Britain 
and her Canadian colonies. And it has been believed by many that 
the charge of forgery was got up merely to afford a pretext for searching 
in Lord Stirling's house for some proof of a treasonable character, 
showing an understanding between him and French authorities. 
Much sympathy was expressed for Lord Stirling and his family, ac- 
companied by pohte, but firm, refusals to take any part in the object 
desired, for the reasons above given. 

These demands for verification were renewed at every change of 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 4* 

men and Government ineffectually. Our talented fellow-countryman^ 
Major Poore^ who was employed by the Massachusetts Historical So- 
ciety to make searches in Paris, was equally unsuccessful in his efforts 
to obtain access to these archives. He is well acquainted with the 
fact of Lord Stirling's failure, and can attest to the truth of the state- 
ments relative to his own efforts. 

Whatever may be the deficiencies of proof as to the former custody 
of this document, they are wholly immaterial as proofs of its genuine- 
ness. This document, clothed with autographs of the most dis- 
tinguished men of France, is not like an ordinary deed. It is to be 
regarded as a work of art, completely covered with indications of its 
authenticity, or proofs of its falsity. It is like hundreds of old pictures 
■hy the great masters, which have passed through suspicious hands, 
which are authenticated by no proofs of former custody, but are re- 
garded as of priceless value solely on account of the inherent evidences 
which they present of their genuineness. 

Lord Stirling was accused of forging an excerpt or abridged copy o 
".the charter of Novo damns of 1639. Two days of the trial were oc- 
cupied in discussions and presenting evidence in relation to the excerpt. 
The object of the Crown counsel in incriminating the excerpt was to 
convey the impression to the jury that Lord Stirling had founded all 
his claims upon the charter of 1639, and that the excerpt accused was 
the only evidence presented of the evidence of that charter. The 
Crown counsel undertook to show, as Blackwood has since done, that 
if this excerpt is proved to be insufficient evidence of the existence of 
'.the charter of 1639 that all Lord Stirling's claims fell to the ground. 
f t was even asserted that the services of the juries, who had given 
their verdicts as to the heirship, were founded on this excerpt. 

Nov/, what are the facts? This excerpt was never presented to the 
jury at any one of the services. It was not used or presented by Lord 
Stirling as proof in the civil suit brought by the Crown to reduce the 
■services. It is not placed on the list of proofs, although Lord Stir- 
ling's counsel always considered it a genuine and authentic document. 
He had himself withdrawn it. He was himself perfectl}^ aware of all 
the apparent defects in the documents which the Crown counsel pre- 
tend to have discovered by a rare sagacity; and for these reasons he had 
instructed his counsel not to rely upon a document which was sub- 
jected to a breath of suspicion. It is true he had every reason for be- 
lieving the document genuine, and proof since obtained has fully 
7 



TRIAL OF LORD ' STIRLING. 

established it. He had received it from his ag-ent, Mr. BankS; who, 
in a letter of ITth March, 1829, had given him a detailed account of 
'^the fortunate discovery" he had just ''made in Ireland of the abridged 
copy or excerpt of the charter of Novo damns of 1639," 

The many learned counsel who had examined the document had 
not a doubt as to its genuineness. Mr. Lockhart, Lord Stirling's most 
respectable solicitor or agent; says "that no suspicion ever crossed his 
mind as to the genuineness of the document;" and he continued in this 
belief to the last. Lord Stirling, soon after receiving the excerpt from 
Mr. Banks, in 1829, "threw himself upon the tender mercies" of the 
principal prosecuting officer for Scotland, and exhibited the excerpt ta 
Sir William Rae, the Lord Advocate, who had been directed by the 
Ministers to consider a petition of Lord Stirling relative to the lands of 
Nova Scotia and Canada. Mr. Corrie, a most respectable solicitor of 
Birmingham, says: "Nothing escaped from the Lord Advocate from 
which he could infer that he suspected the document, but the reverse. 
Mr. Maundell, of Great George street, attended each day before the 
Lord Advocate. I do not recollect or believe that he ever expressed a 
suspicion on the subject of any of the documents. The Lord Advo- 
cate said that he saw no reason to doubt that the petitioner was Earl of 
Stirling, and had a right to that title; that he had no doubt about the 
charter, but he would not advise his Majesty to grant a new patent or 
charter, because Lord Stirling had a legal remedy in Scotland, refer- 
ring, I believe, to a process for proof per tenorem." 

Believing, as Lord Stirling did, that this excerpt was a genuine 
document, which more recent investigations have fully proved, he pre- 
sented the excerpt in an action for proving the tenor, the purpose of 
which was to obtain a new charter upon proving the tenor or sub- 
stance, and loss of the ancient charter. In that action, brought in 
1829, he failed; but not on account of any doubts thrown upon the 
genuineness of the excerpt, but for the simple reason, stated by the 
Judges, that the excerpt did not appear to be a copy of a perfected 
charter, but of a privy seal precept for a charter. 

From that moment he refused to enrol among his proofs a document 
which had any incompleteness or defects which could not be explained. 
It was only through the carelessness of Lord Stirling's agents that a 
document, which he had not thought of for nine years, remained 
among the files of the court. 

If this document had been a forgery, why would the fabricator have 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 51 

allowed this proof of guilt, which he no longer relied on as evidence 
of his claims, to remain in the hands of his enemies? If it had been 
suspected to be a forgery, why was it allowed to remain imaccused for 
nine years by the agents of the Crown, who would have eagerly 
availed themselves of any means of crushing so formidable an oppo- 
nent? 

But it served the purpose of the Crown to connect this excerpt with 
the French documents, and to assert that upon these Lord Stirling 
based all his claims. 

If the excerpt was believed to be a forgery, wliy did not the Crown 
prosecute the only party who could have committed it? The evidence 
of Mr. Lockhart and the letters offered in evidence proved that Lord 
Stirhng had received this document from Mr. Banks, in Ireland. The 
forgery, if it had been committed, had been done by Banks, and not 
Lord Stirling. These letters the Crown counsel would not allow to 
be read. Banks had become their tool, and had aided them in hunt- 
ing up the objections to the excerpt upon which they rested their case. 
The prosecution of the real fabricator, if fabricatioa there was, would 
not have served their purpose. 

We repeat it, granting the excerpt to have been fabricated, it proves 
nothing against Lord Stirliag. It does not weaken in the slightest 
respect his claims. The correspondence with Banks proves that Lord 
Stirling was innocent of any fabrication. The jury found this by 
their verdict. It had never been used or relied on at the services as 
evidence, and the verdict of the jury which impeached it declared, no 
more than had been already acknowledged, that it was not admissible 
as evidence without further attestation. 

Still we have no doubts as to the genuineness of the documents, and 
the attacks made at the trial caused an investigation which completely 
satisfied Lord Stirling and his friends as to its authenticity. 

There is a broad distinction between the genuineness or authenticity 
of a document, and the sufficiency of that document as evidence. It is 
in the latter respect alone that the attacks made upon this document 
have any force. 

We have proved, as we must think conclusively, the genuineness of 
the French documents, and we claim the benefit of the rule given by 
Lord Meadowbank to the jury: ^-Tf you are satisfied that the proof is 
clear that any of these sets of documents are forged, but that the evi- 
dence with respect to the others is not so conclusive, you will have to 



B2 TKIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

imake up your minds whether^ considering- that the whole are so con- 
nected with and bear upon each other, there can be any good reasoa 
for fixing a character upon one which must not also belong- to ihe 
other," No one believing the genuineness of Mallet's note, e¥eBi 
without the other evidence^ can doubt that the charter of iNovo dami3S^„ 
of 1639 existed^ or can conceive it improbable that a copy or excerpt ©f 
such a charter should have been made by the solicitor of the StirlJBg" 
family in Ireland. 

To understand the circumstances under which this copy was proba-- 
hly madC;, it will be necessary for the reader to know certain factSj. 
which are fully established by documentary evidence. During ihe 
troubles in Scotland the Dowager Countess of Stirling resided in Ire- 
land with her daughter, the Countess of Mount Alexander, for- 
merly Viscountess Montgomerie. Afterwards the Countess of Mount 
Alexander left the original charter of Novo damns, received from 
her mother, with a Mr. Conyers, from whose hands it came into 
the custody of his son Mr. T. Conyers, a master in Chancery, aisd 
solicitor of the family of Montgomerie. It appears that, after the 
death of the fifth Earl, Mr. Conyers delivered the orig-inal charter 
of Novo damns to the sixth Earl de jure, Kev. John Alexander; 
of Dublin. A box containing this charter, with many other fam- 
ily parchments, was stolen in England from the widow of the sixth 
Earl de jure, as there is every reason to believe, by a servant of Mr. 
"William Trumbull, a collateral descendant of the fifth Earl. When 
Mr. Trumbull made arrangements with Gen. Alexander to unite with 
liim in prosecuting the claim to the Stirling estates, this box, contain- 
ing the charter, seen by Horace Walpole, and many other papers, was 
delivered to Gen. Alexander. We have not space at this time to pre- 
sent the documentary history by which these facts are established, for 
we have made this brief digression simply for the purpose of expiaio- 
ing the connexion of Mr. Conyers with the excerpt. 

The excerpt, consisting of over two thousand words, is writteis 
wholly in Latin. It is acknowledged to correspond in every particular 
with the Chancery Latin of the ancient charters; not a single error of 
phraseology was detected by the acute lawyers who examined it. 
Since the writing of Latin has almost wholly gone out of use, it is 
utterly inconceivable that any modern forger could have composed and 
fabricated a law document in a dead language, which would not have 
exposed to a nice criticism its falsity and recent origin in a hundred 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 53 

particulars. And yet all that Blackwood can find is the objection that 
the term '^consanguineiis noster" is applied to Peers, and never to a 
Commoner; while the alleged charter twice applied that title to Alex- 
ander, the son of the Peer, consequently ''a Commoner, and not the 
Earl himself!" an objection both absurd and false. The term might 
naturally be applied to the son of a Peer, styled as Lord Alexander. 
But the title of cousin was applied in the excerpt to the Earl himself, 
as follows: "We give, &c., &c. to our right trusty and well-beloved 
cousin and councillor William, Earl of Stirling," fcc, ("per conti^o 
et predilecto nostro cojisanguineo et consiliario, VYiliielmo, Comiti de 
Stirling.") 

How rotten a cause must that be, which is reduced to Cjuibbles and 
falsehoods like this. 

The excerpt had evidently been copied by Mr. Conyers or his clerk 
into a book or register, and the leaves afterwards cut out, (but there is 
nothing to show that they had recently been cut out,) folded up, 
endorsed, and placed away with other Stirling papers. There were 
red lines about the margin which favor that supposition. This was 
used as an argument against the antiquity of the document, and is 
a fair specimen of the reasoning and proof on the trial. A witness 
swore that red lines were not introduced into Scotland till 1780, 
or at least had not come under his notice till that time. 

The writing was in an old hand, different from the Chancery hand 
in which charters in Scotland are vvritten. A witness precognosed, 
but not called, for the defence, who had been employed for years in a 
solicitor's office in London, was shown the excerpt, and states that it 
was on precisely the same*kind of English court hand as old English 
deeds, and, being in Latin, resembled them entirely. Eminent law- 
yers from Dublin were brought at a great expense to Edinburgh, who 
had with them ancient registers and documents, and would have proved 
that all the old law writings in Ireland of that date were in this style 
and hai^d. They would also have proved that the marginal reference, 
'^Reg. Mag. Sig.," which a witness swore was not introduced into 
Scotland till 17S0, was the ancient, and certainly the most natural, 
mode of making such a reference to charters of the Great Seal in Ire- 
land. These witnesses would have proved the genuineness of the 
initials and flourish of Thomas Conyers. They also would have 
proved the authenticity of an ancient affidavit, libelled on by the 
Crown, signed by Henry Hovenden, and sworn to before one of the 
Barons of the Exchequer of Ireland, showing that the existence of 



54 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

the original charter of Novo damns, in the hands of Tliomas Conyers, 
and the genuineness of a certificate of Thomas Conyers to the same 
effect. These witnesses had been brought from Ireland by General 
D'Aguilar at an expense of nearly ^500. Owing to the lateness of 
their arrival in Edinburgh, the Crown counsel were not aware of the 
extent and importance of their testimony, and therefore these precog- 
nitions were not taken; but when they were introduced, and took their 
places in the witness-box, with the ancient registers and writings in 
their hands, and the court was made acquainted with the points they 
were about to substantiate, the Judges, who were so vigilantly guard- 
ing the Crown's interest, seeing that the proof would be fatal to the 
infamous scheme of the Crown lawyers, were alarmed; a?id, after 
i^etmng for secret consultation, ruled, amidst the murmurs of indig- 
nation of the vast crowd assembled, that the loitnesses should not be 
heard! 

Three witnesses, holding Crown offices, expressed the opinion that 
the document was not ancient. This testimony is completely neutral- 
ized by the practical assertion of the genuineness of the document by 
the lav/yers, Lord Advocate, and Judges, who, nine years before, hav- 
ing it under the closest examination, had no doubt as to its genuine- 
ness. One chemist made experiments on the paper, which proved it, 
he thought, to be recent. Another chemist, employed by the Crown, 
made experiments, which proved the paper to be old. This was a 
specimen of the uncertainty and vagueness of the testimony. The 
Judge, Meadowbank, thought it a proof of the falsity of the document 
that the charter granted a part of ^e\Y England, w4iich the Judge said 
the Scotch Crown had no power to grant. Yet the undoubted charter 
of Canada, registered in Scotland, contains a grant of lands of New 
England and New York. 

Still there are two defects or inconsistencies in the excerpt, which, 
although furnishing no evidence of fabrication, are not at .first easy to 
explain. 

These difficulties, or inconsistencies, are, that at the end of the ex- 
cerpt are the words gratis per signetum; which words are found 
only on a Privy Seal precept, and not on a complete charter; while the 
excerpt has the testing clause, which ought not to be on a Privy Seal 
precept. The second inconsistency is that the testing part, having the 
names of the witnesses, but not their signatures, has the name of John, 
Archbishop of St. Andrews, Chancellor of the Kingdom of Scotland,, 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLIXG. 55 

and nine others, with the date of the 7th of December, 1639; while, in 
fact, the Archbishop of St. Andrews ceased to be Chancellor on the 
13th of rs'ovember, 1639, and died on the 26th of November, 1639. 

We present the explanation of these inconsistencies, given by the 
lawyers in Scotland, who have still entire confidence in the genuine- 
ness of the excerpt. 

It is believed that 'Mv. Conyers, who was in 1723 the possessor of 
the vriginal charter of 7th December, 1639, and was a lawyer and 
master of Chancery, was also the man of business or steward of the 
noble family of Montgomerie. Hence it is inferred that he and his 
father had been for many 3"ears the depositaries of many other papers 
of the Montgomerie and Stirling families. Tiie endorsement, with the 
iniiials and flourish on the outside leaf of the excerpt, seem clearly to 
prove that the document was written by one of the clerks of Mr. Con- 
yers for his ov:n use. The form of the excerpt is of that class of docti- 
ments called mandates or precepts, and the words per signetuni are 
apphcable to a mandate under the Privy Seal. The clause descriptive 
of the v,itn esses most certainly ought not to have been inserted. On 
tliis account it would appear that the excerpt was prepared, not from 
an original perfect charter, but from o. first draft of an intended 
charter, written for the Earl's approbation, (as was usual when such 
royal gremts were conceded by the Sovereign,) long before the great 
seal was affixed to the completed charter. This, precedents it is said 
will show, might have been done fifteen or sixteen months before the 
Tih December, 1639. At the moment of drawing such a draft, the 
Archbishop of St. Andrews was still probably Chancellor of Scotland, 
and the insertion of his name then as one of the proposed witnesses 
could not have been an extraordinary or irregular proceeding. Xow, 
after having given up the original charter to the sixth Earl, when he 
succeeded to the honors, it is thought that Mr. Conyers had had the 
expert made for his o-^^n private reference from the first draft remain- 
ing in the Montgomerie charter chest, and not from the original char- 
ter. This theory, which presents nothing improbable^ enables us 
satisfactorily to account for the few errors in the excerpt^ otherwise so 
unimpeachable. The addition of the real date of the perfect charter 
upon an excerpt taken from a first draft, which could not have borne 
any date, is accounted for by supposing that Mr. Conyers, of his own 
will, caused the date to be added in order to bear it in his remem- 
brance. 



56 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 



It was argued; that if there had heen any charter of Novo damns, 
it would have been recorded in the different stages througli which, 
it went to completion in the records of four different departments. To 
thiS; It is said, that the Earl of Stirling, long Secretary and Keeper of 
the Seals, and who issued his own mandate, possessing in consequence 
of his exalted station extraordinary powers, could have caused the ori- 
ginal signature, under the King's sign manual, to be canied per saltuni 
to the Director of Chancery as a sufficient authority for preparing and 
sealing the charter. In such a case, the records would not show the usual 
successive steps for the completion of the charter. It is admitted that 
twelve leaves in the 57th volume of the records of that period are 
missing. The loss of these leaves and the defects of registration are 
more naturally accounted for by the disturbances of the times. We 
shall adopt the language of the very able writer in the Democratic 
Review, who has discussed the question of Lord Stirling's rights w4th 
great ability. 

''Clarendon gives an elaborate picture of these distempered times, 
which should be consulted by all who ask the reason why formalities 
of registration have not been attended to by the Crown's grantees at 
Edinburgh in 1639-40. The truth is, that they could not transact any 
business whatever there but by proxy, for to have presented themselves 
would have been to hazard, if not to forfeit, their lives. And if the 
Earl of Stirling obtained by stealth the registration of his patent of 
Novo damns, in the 57th volume of the Records, as we believe he 
did, the state of feeling there against every friend and counsellor of 
Charles was such that fully accounts for its being torn from its place 
by anybody, amidst the applause of the whole community. The 
wonder is, not that it is gone with the twelve missing leaves, and that 
the indexes made up long after say nothing of it, but it had been a 
greater wonder had it been allowed to remain. In fact, when we look 
back at that day, when universal indignation possessed the people 
against the Court, w^e would be as much astonished to find the charter 
in question on the register, as to have found that granted to the town of 
Edinburgh torn out. The existence of the one and the non-existence 
of the other are only equivalent proofs of the state of the public mind. 
It had not been possible for a royal grant of British North America, 
made part of the very county of Edinburgh for the express purpose of 
vesting the title in a courtier, to exist on the record. It was sure to be 
destroyed there at any rate, by some person or other." 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. ST 

To this it may be added, the charter may not have been a ScotcFi 
charter at all, and no registration may have been attempted in Scot- 
land where political prejudices were so strong against the favorite cour- 
tier of the unpopular King. 

Other charters, purely American, and 07ily recordedin Amei^ica , for 
instance, that of Sr. Ferdinando George, were granted to several dis- 
tinguished men, who, at their own risk and charges, undertook to 
colonize different portions of the western continent. The charter of 
Novo damns, referring particularly to estates in America, may have 
been recorded only at Port Royal or Annapolis. Thus all the grand 
objections founded on the want of registration would be overthrown. 

We have already dvvelt too long upon the question of the genuine- 
ness of the excerpt, which the jury declared was not forged by Lord 
Stirling, or uttered by him knowing it to be forged, and which, Avhether 
authentic or not, is wholly unnecessary to support his rights, and hasteir 
to a consideration of the De Porquet packet, which contains evidence 
in English perfectly conclusive as to Lord Stirling's descent. Little 
need here be said. These documents were attacked with the same 
reckless and indiscriminating ferocity as the other papers by both the 
Crown counsel, and court. See how Lord Meadowbank pressed this 
point in his charge to the jury. ^'It is a matter for your consideration 
to say v/hether there are any grounds for your doubting that the Eng- 
lish documents are forged also." But these documents were Enirlish, 
The jury could read and understand them. No longer compelled t» 
trust to French experts and Scotch lawyers, and to pass on papers in a. 
language which they could not comprehend, they vindicated their 
sturdy common sense as soon as they could see and judge for them- 
selves. They found the English documents in the De Porquet packet 
genuine— a judgment most mortifying to the Crown, for still Lord 
Stirling was left with his best defences assoiled of suspicion. 

We may remark here that it is no part of our present object to prove 
the pedigree of the Earl of Stirling. A paper as long as the present 
would be required to present and discuss the vast mass of evidence by 
which the pedigree is established. Although we may avail ourselves 
of another occasion to present this interesting evidence, we consider 
the question of pedigree settled by the services of the juries, and by 
the opinions so distinctly expressed by Lord Brougham and other ex- 
Chancellors in the House of Lords, in 1845, that the Scotch courts 
.had no right to reduce the services. We confidently rely upon a final 
8 



58 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

and Iriuniphant decision upon this point in the House of Lords as soon 
as the means for prosecuting the appeal are provided. 

We do not deem it necessary to reply to the foul aspersions upon 
Lord Stirling's character contained in the articles of Blackwood and 
the arguments of the prosecuting officers and presiding judge. 

No other answer need be given to these exaggerations and inventions 
than the testimony given at the trial by Lord Stirling's friends. We 
give from the Crown report the testimony of two only 'of the witnesses, 
without comment, simply premising that, strong as it is, it has been 
toned down by the otBcers of State, who revised the report before its 
publication, and have suffered no reference to be made to the enthu- 
siastic reception of this evidence by the audience. 

Mr. Harding, cousin of late Sir Robert Peel, said of Lord Stirling, 
"^'He is a man of excellent moral principle and honor. As a father, as 
a husband, and as a friend, his character is one of the very best. At 
school, he was loved by every one. When I knew him again, 1 had 
occasion to know a great deal of him, from the time of his first calling 
upon me. In his letters, there is not an observation that would not do 
honor to an}^ one, as far as the heart is concerned. There is no man 
in existence more honorable than he is." 

Col. D'Aguilar, (now Lieutenant-General and Governor of Ports- 
mouth,) said: 

^' I am at the head of the adjutant-general's staff in Ireland. My 
first commission was dated in 1790, about forty years ago; I was at 
school with him (Lord Stirling) near Birmingham, at the Hev. Mr. 
Corrie's, brother of Mr. Josiali Corrie." 

•^ Did you visit his family ?" 

'^'- Yes, often. I may state the circumstance. 1 was at that lime at 
a considerable distance from my friends. Lord Stirling's family re- 
sided in the immediate neighborhood. We were class-fellows. His 
place was generally immediately above me; he also showed kindness 
to me; and it brought us more or less together. When he went home 
" at the short vacation, he invariably took me with him; so that I had 
the opportunity of living in habits of great intimacy with him; not 
only with himself, but with his family. The character of his family- 
was in the highest degree respectable. I may be a little prejudiced, 
for I received such affectionate kindness and hospitality from the fami- 
ly that I can never forget it. Their affection for me was unbounded, 
and I am here to repay the debt of gratitude which I owed to them; I 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 59 

was separated from hiai by circumstances. 1 corresponded with him 
and his famil}^; when I was in London, (1830, and subsequently,) I 
saw a great deal of him, and was frequently at his house, and he in 
mine; his children corresponded with my children. There was no 
event of his life, more particularly that connected with the claim and 
title, that he did not confide to me. As to his character as a man of 
honor, as a good parent, and a good husband, I think my presence 
here is the best answer to that question. Nothing on earth could have 
induced me to take the part 1 have taken, to stand before the court 
where I do, (beside his friend,) if I did not think Lord Stirling to be 
incapable of a dishonorable action. I beg to say, that if the corres- 
pondence of an individual is any index to his mind and character, that 
1 have in ray possession the most ample proofs to enable me to form 
my opinion of him . " 

The crown report omits to state that General D'Aguilar in giving 
this testimony from the dock, where with a sublime and chivalric devo- 
tion he had taken his place by the side of his friend, was frequently 
interrupted by the shouts of applause of the vast audience, who sym- 
pathized so deeply with the prisoner. 

The conduct of the prosecuting officers throughout this trial was 
characterized by a determination, and even ferocity, which was due 
not merely to official zeal, but lo deep personal interest in the result. 
The leading Crown counsel was Ivory, the solicitor-general. This ad- 
vocate had had the management of the civil suit against Lord Stirling 
ever since 1833. He was made solicitor-general for the express pur- 
pose of conducting the case in the criminal court, and appeared in hi& 
official gown for the first time at this trial. He was assisted by Mr. 
Innes and Roderic McKenzie. The latter had been crown agent in 
this case since 1833. The sura of o:^40,000 had been pledged to Ivory 
and McKenzie by private parties in possession of the English and 
Scotch estates, on the condition that Lord Stirling should be broken 
down. In 1837, Messrs. Ivory and McKenzie made repeated over- 
tures to Lord Stirling's agent, Mr. Lockhart, to compromise the case^ 
and complained bitterly of Lord Stirling's obstinacy in refusing to ne- 
gotiate. They desired that the negotiations should be carried on 
through them, that they might secure their reward. Lord Stirling re- 
fused to treat with any parties except the ministers. Of course all the 
influence of the Crown officers was brought to bear upon the ministers 
o prevent a settlement of the case by them, which at that lime, 1837,, 



60 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

after the suppression of the Canadian rebellion, the Government were 
inclined to favor. Here we deem it our dut}'^ to express our own doi^btSj. 
as well as those of Lord Stirling, whether the criminal efforts of the 
crown agents and counsel to destroy his case by tampering with his 
documents, and suborning corrupt witnesses, could have been known 
to the Lord Advocate, and to the ministers and higher officers of the 
British Government. The British Government has in this case refused 
to do right; but could they have authorized such base and cowardly 
wrong? Indeed, several of its members have indignantly denied that 
they had instigated criminal suit, saying that they '' knew that Lord 
Stirling was a perfectly honorable man." Still the Government have 
been anxious to suppress the exposure of these iniquitous proceedings^.. 
Avhich would have thrown so much discredit upon the Crown. They 
induced Mr. Wallace to withdraw a motion made by him in tiie British 
House of Commons in 1839, for a detailed report of the expenses in 
the Lord Advocate's office for this trial alone, officially reported to be 
the enormous sum of .J'lGjOOO, eighty thousand dollars! 

Of the conduct of the defence, we speak with that pain which every 
one must feel when the honor of his profession has been violated.. 
We shrink even from expressing our own convictions, and would seek 
for some excuse for the management of a cause which seems explica- 
ble only by supposing excessive stupidity or bad faith. How, except. 
by conceiving the most painful suspicions, can it be explained that 
witnesses — some of whom had been brought at immense expense to at- 
tend at the trial, who would not only have crushed the case of the 
prosecution, but have hurled back upon the accusers the cliarge of fab- 
lication — were not called? We could wish to believe that the leading; 
counsel, Mr. Robertson, seeing the whole power of the Government^,, 
and all the weight of the court brought to bear upon his client — seeing 
liim doomed by the remorseless tyranny of the Crown — hoped to avert 
a portion of this doom by '^saving the honor of the Crown, compro- 
mised by its agents." Perhaps he felt that he could only save hiff 
client's liberty by the sacrifice of his cause, when, instead of manfully 
defending all the rights which but for him were so impregnably fortified^, 
he abandoned his strong position by such words as these: "Let the 
visionary coronet of vain ambition be plucked from his bewildered 
brow; let the visionary prospects of vast possessions and boundless 
wealth vanish into empty air. * # # On my conscience, J be- 
lieve him to have been the dupe of the designmg, and the prey of the 
worthless." 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 61 

Thus the Crown found in the defender's counsel its strongest ally, 
for certainly all the assaults of Ivory and Meadowbank did not injure 
Lord Stirling's cause so much as this weak, cowardly, shuffling, tem- 
porizing defence. 

In England, or in any country wdiere there is any popular strength, 
a vigorous and manly opposition to the oppression of the Government, 
in a great cause like this, would have been the foundation of profes- 
sional success. But in Edinburgh, where there is no large commer- 
cial community to keep in its service the best talent of the bar, all the 
prizes of the profession are the places in the gift of the Crown. And 
the Government is sure of having no more opposition than is necessary 
on the part of the opponent to prove that he is worth buying off. 

On the first two days of the trial the defence was conducted with 
vigor and skill. The witnesses for the Crown were submitted to a rig- 
orous cross-examination, and the arbitrary rulings of the court resisted 
with becoming spirit. But on the third day it was remarked on all 
sides that after the Crown counsel, and after them the leading coun- 
sel for the defence, had been called to the bench, and a long and pri- 
vate communication had passed between the latter and the presiding 
judge, a deplorable change took place, and the wishes of Lord Stir- 
ling and his friends were no longer regarded. What passed in that 
interview cannot be told. But certain it is that shortly after the trial 
Lord Meadowbank left the bench, and the advocate who had deserted 
his client's cause, and who, whether unwittingly or not, had so well 
served the Crown's interest, and who had said in his speech, ''I tram- 
ple on the tarnished ermine with disdain," was even without going 
through the ordinary grades, pitchforked to the bench. 

It is but just to say, that Lord Stirling has always spoken of his 
junior counsel with respect and regard. He mighi not have been 
vrholly free from that influence which pervaded the legal atmosphere 
of Edinburgh, and doubtless felt himself compelled by the imperative 
rules of professional courtesy to yield to the leading counsel. 

But what shall we say of that modern Jeffreys, the presiding judge, 
who acted throughout the trial as the ^'leading counsel of the Crown," 
(his own words.) Such unblushing prostitution of judicial power to 
subserve a 'Apolitical purpose" cannot be instanced in modern times. 
Every ruling was against the prisoner. In every question to a witness, 
and the court took a prominent, and what to us seems a most unusuaL 



62 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

pail in the examination, was calculated to assure the reluctant witness 
for the Crown, and draw forth stronger evidence against the paneL. 
Resolved, remorseless, straining every fact, torturing every circum- 
stance, he never relaxed from his purpose of doom. 

We give some random sentences from his charge: 

"I submit to you that it would not be safe to hold that there could 
be any doubt that this is a fabricated document." '-In my opinion, a 
document liable to such insurmountable objections staring upon the 
face of il, cannot be genuine." '^It is really so manifest that it does 
not require to be mentioned; that while these documents on the back 
of the map bears the dates of 1706 and 1707, the map itself did not ex- 
ist till 1718." ^'I do not know that in all ray life I ever saw anything 
that tended more conclusively to satisfy my mind of anything than this 
fact satisfies me that this is an entire fabrication from beginning to 
end." ''Then last of all in regard to this point, we have at the end of 
the indictment the supposed anonymous letter to Lenormand which 
must follow the fate of the document itself. You can have no diffi- 
culty or ground for doubting that this letter is a forgery also." ''The- 
son returns with a map which I am assuming you are to hold to be a 
fabrication." ''And in my mind there does not exist a shadow of a. 
doubt of its being a forged document." 

Throughout the whole charge there is not a circumstance, or fact, 
or question, presented or suggested, to raise a doubt in favor of the 
prisoner. He gleans every argument or fact bearing against the pris- 
oner which had been omitted by the counsel for the prosecution. We 
give one instance of the reasoning against the prisoner, thus gleaned up> 
and urged upon the jury, when there was no opportunity of refuting it,, 
which well illustrates the shallowness and falsity of the reasoning (for 
there were no proofs) against the documents on the map. 

Mallet, in the note on the map dated 1706, speaks of the charter of 
Novo damns as "uneancienne charte," and John Alexander speaking 
in French of a tradition relative to the loss of certain records sixty years 
before, calls it "I'ancienne tradition," 

Now, every French scholar knows that the words "ancien" and 
"ancienne" in French are applied to things not only very ancient, 
but those of comparatively recent occurrence. Thus we should speak 
of a retired minister as "un ancien ministre" — meaning one formerly 
such — "une ancienne femme de chambre," or a woman who was 
formerly a lady's maid But with Lord Meadowbank, the use of this- 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 63 

word was a conclusive proof of the forgery of the document. "I ask 
you, he says, addressing the jury, whether any mortal man ever heard 
of ^'^ancient" being applied to a document of sixty years. Can you, 
by any construction or credulity, believe that such a thing could have 
taken place?" Speaking of John Alexander's use of the ^'ancienne 
tradition:" ^'Who ever heard of the ancient tradition of a thing that 
happened fort}:^ or fifty years ago?" 

Among other ingenious distortions of the presiding Judge, is the 
statement that a note found pasted on the map after the tombstone in- 
scription which w^as pasted over it had been removed in court, was an 
incipient forgery, and had been attempted to be torn off by the forger. 
IN'ow the fact is, and it is a fact which Lord Meadowbank must have 
known, that after the note, with the signature and date had been rap- 
idly and indistinctl}^ read to the court, Mr. Cosmo Tnnes seized the 
map, and for reasons known only to himself, rapidly tore off the bot- 
tom of the note with the name and date, and crumpling the frag- 
Tuent in his hand, threw it on the floor. This act was witnessed by 
several gentlemen in attendance, who, immediately after the adjourn- 
Tnent of the court, rushed forward to search for the fragment, but the 
servants of the court were too quick for them, and had already swept 
it away- and yet, the Judge tortures this act of the Crown counsel 
into a proof of the criminality of the accused. 

We have said enough to show that the court had already convicted 
the prisoner before his trial. When \ve reflect upon the condemnation 
■which public opinion must pronounce upon this unjust judge, how re- 
markable are the prophetic w^ords of the ''philosophical poet, the illus- 
trious ancestor of the accused, in his "Doomesday" — 

Ye judges, ye who with a little breath 

Can ruin fortunes and disgrace Inflict, 
Yea, sit securely whilst denouncing death, 

* * Fe shall be judged. 

We know of no instance in modern times which illustrates so forcibly, 
as does this case, the importance of the trial by jury in political causes 
to preserve the liberty or life of the accused. The jury found by 
their verdict that Lord Stirling was not guilty, or, according to the 
•Scotch form, it was not proven that he had forged any of the docu- 
ments. It is true tJiat they were led by the instructions of the court 



Xolt. — Lorl StirZiMg's -pomxi — Doomesday. The llh House. English Poets and Trans- 
itions, toI. V, D. 363. 



64 TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 

to find wliat they had no right to do, and what was wholly unusual, 
even in Scotland, that some of the documents were not genuine. 
Still the verdict, illegal as it was, was conclusive as to the genuineness 
of the only documents which they could understand, documents which 
completely establish Lord Stirling's pedigree. 

While speaking of the jury, we must not omit to mention one inci- 
dent of the trial, wholly overlooked in the Crown report! After a few 
only of Lord Stirling's witnesses had been heard, the foreman or 
chancellor of the jury arose, and addressing the court stated, that the 
jury saw no necessity for going on with the case, as they had made up 
their minds to give a verdict for Lord Stirling. The presiding Judge 
was determined that the panel should not escape. He counted upoa 
the effect of his argument for the Crown, and compelled the jury, in 
spite of their expostulations, to sit for two days longer to listen to his 
own and Ivory's implacable assaults. 

'^When the mutilated verdict was announced, (we adopt the graphic 
description of the Democratic Review,) there was such a stamping" 
and shouting as yet rings in the ears of all who heard it, from 
highest to lowest. It drowned the cries and expostulations of the 
bench, towards which, indeed, it was so menacing that the Chief 
Justice remained some time afterwards in the building, and retired 
privately, while the tenant of the dock was made the object of an 
enthusiastic popular ovation, which, on recovering from a fainting- 
fit, he promptly, but unwisely, declined. The crowd received the 
Earl of Stirling at the front door of the court with huzzas and 
waving of hats and handkerchiefs; they unharnessed the horses from 
his carriage, then before the door, and proposed to draw him them- 
selves back in triumphal procession to his residence, and to his wife 
and children. He resisted their importunities to the last; but was 
compelled, for the opposite reason, to address the crowd himself before 
they would be tranquilized, and left in triumph, followed by hundreds 
of people, by High street, instead of leaving by the back entrance, 
from Cowgate, through which the Chief Justice himself ingloriously 
departed. Conditions had rapidly changed, and retribution seemed to 
be approaching." 

Thus did the accused pass unscathed through an ordeal more fearful 
than that of fire. Cruelly as he w^as persecuted, he wnll yet rejoice at 
the results of that atrocious trial. For will not our readers say, will 
not the world say, that this trial is the strongest confirmation of his 



TRIAL OF LORD STIRLING. 65 

rights? Would the Government of a mighty empire have lent itself to 
crush a pretender, whose fabrications must have been exposed at the 
first glance of common judicial scrutiny ? Would the treasure of the 
Crown have been lavished as it was; would high officers of State have 
been created, base falsifiers rewarded, and treacherous advocates 
clothed with "the tarnished ermine;" would the stronghold of British 
freedom have been invaded, and the halls of justice violated; would 
the honor of the crown have been compromised, exposure of all the 
outrages of this trial risked, if an imperious necessity had not de- 
manded the saving, by a '^ bold stroke," the vast territories to which 
Lord Stirling had judicially established his right? When the Bri- 
tish Government allowed honor and law to be violated to effect 
their purpose, did they not deliberately proclaim that they had no 
legal defence to Lord Stirling's claims? Gladly now would they 
keep this trial out of sight. The Enghsh press, which has just re- 
sponded with so much anxiety to the assertion of Lord Stirling's rights 
by the American papers, carefully ignore the trial at Edinburgh, and 
prefer even to fall back upon the deliberate falsehood that Lord Stir- 
ling's claims have been rejected by the House of Lords. 

But this trial will not be forgotten. It will have its place in history 
with those of Hampden^ Russell, and Sydney. And Lord Stirling, 
not for his rank or titles, not for his vast claims, but as the victim of po- 
litical oppression, and as presenting in himself a most significant illustra- 
tion of the abuses of British power, will most assuredly receive the sup- 
port and sympathy of the American press and people, and the friends of 
freedom throughout the world. Enlightened by them, Pubhc Opin- 
ion, the mighty tribunal before which even monarchs must bow, will 
reverse the decisions of unjust courts. 

A great wrong cannot endure; "judges may die, and courts be at 
an end; but justice still lives, and though she may sleep for 

AWHILE, WILL EVENTUALLY AWAKE, AND MUST BE SATISFIED."—- 

(Paterson, J. 1 Dallas's U. S. Sup. Court Reports, p. 86.) 



APPENDIX. 



Translation of the Documents in French, upon the back of a map of 
Canada, by Guillawne De LUsle, Geographer to King Louis 
XI V. Published in 1 703 . 



No. I. 17189 

& 
Note by M. Ph. Mallet. 17190 

Lyons, Mh August, 1706. 

During my stay in Acadia, in 1702, my curiosity was excited by what was told me re- 
specting an old Charter, which is preserved in the Archives of that pro- 
vince. It is the Charter of Confirmation, or of " Novo damus," dated 7th Reg. H. 
December, 1639, by which King Charles the First of England renewed, in fo. 95., E. D. 
favor of William, Earl of Stirling, the titles and dignities which he had Mar. 1, 1710. 
previously granted to him, and all the grants of land which had been made 
to him since 1621, in Scotland and in America. My friend Lacroix caused a copy of it 
to be given to me, which, before leaving the country, I took the precaution of getting duly 
attested. From this authentic document I am going to present, in this place, a few ex- 
tracts, (translated into French for the better understanding of those who do not know 
Latin,) in order that every person, on opening this map of our American possessions, 
may form an idea of the vast extent of territory which was granted by the King of Eng- 
land to one of his subjects. If the fate of war, or some other event, should cause New 
France and Acadia to return under the dominion of the English, the family of Stirling 
would possess these two provinces^ as well as New England, " and in like manner the 
whole of the passages and bounds, as well upon the waters as upon the land, from the 
source of the river of Canada, in whatsoever place it may be found, to the Bay of Califor- 
nia, with fifty leagues of land on each side of the said passage; and further, all the other 
lands, bounds, lakes, rivers, firths, woods, forests and others, which may be hereafter 
found, conquered, or discovered by the said Earl or his heirs." 

Then follows the order of succession to this inheritance. 

1st, To the titles of nobility, (" de novo damus," &c.) " to the aforesaid William, Earl 
of Stirling, and the heirs-male descending of his body, whom failing, to the eldest heirs- 
female," (" hseredibus femellis natu maximis,") " without division of the last of the 
aforesaid heirs-male, and the heirs-male descending of the body of the said heirs-female 
respectively, bearing the surname and arms of Alexander, and failing all these heirs, to 
the nearest heirs whatsoever of the said William, Earl of Stirling." (Here follow the 
titles, &c.) 2d. To the territorial possessions, (" de novo damus concedimus, disponi- 
mus, proque nobis et successoribus nostris pro perpetuo confirmamus,) " to the aforesaid 
William, Earl of Stirling, and the heirs-male descending of his body, whom failing, to 
the eldest of the heirs-female, without division, of the last of the aforesaid males, who 
shall succeed hereafter to the aforesaid titles, honors, and dignities, and the heirs-male de- 
scending of the body of the aforesaid heirs-female respectively bearing the surname and 



APPENDIX. 67 

arms of the family of Alexander, which they shall be held and obliged to assume," &c. 
Thus the King of England gave to the Earl, and confirmed to his descendants in perpetu- 
ity, lands suiHcient to form the foundation of a powerful empire in America. 

(Signed) Ph. Mallet. 

On the right hand upper corner of the above document, is a memorandum by King 
Louis XV, of France, in the following terms: 

" This note is worthy of some attention under the present circumstances; but let the 
copy of the original Charter be sent to me." 

Underneath this is the following attestation by M. Villenave:* 

" I attest that the four lines above are in the handwriting of Louis XV, and perfectly 
conformable to the writing of that King, several of whose autograph documents and let- 
ters are in my possession. 

(Signed) " VILLENAVE." 

•« Paris, this 2d of August, 1837." 



No. II. 
Note by M. Caron St. Etienne, a Canadian, underneath the Note by M. Mallet. 

" The above is a valuable note. I can affirm that it gives, in a few words, an extremely 
just idea of the wonderful Charter v;hich is referred to. As for the copy of this Charter, 
it is attested by the Keeper of the Archives and Acadian witnesses; and must be entirely 
conformable to the Register of Port Royal. I Imd heard at Gtuebec persons speak of the 
grants to the Earl of Stirling, but my friend, M. Mallet, was the first who procured for 
me a perusal of the Charter. This extraordinary document extends to nearly fifty pages 
of writing, and the Latin is nothing less than classical; yet, being a Canadian, and, as 
such, a little interested in what is contained in it, I feel bound to say, that I have read it 
from beginning to end with as much curiosity as satisfaction. The deceased, M. Mallet, 
was a man whose good qualities and rare intelligence make it to be i-egretted that death 
should have so suddenly carried him off from his friends. 

"He had well foreseen that the copy would not make the Charter known in France. 
On this account, therefore, he formed the project of writing upon one of these beautiful 
maps of Guillaume De L'Isle a note, that every body might read with interest. If he 
had lived long enough he v/ould have added to that interest, for he wished to make inqui- 
ries in England regarding the actual situation of the descendants of the Earl viho obtain- 
ed the grants, and all that might have been communicated to him respecting them would 
have been written upon this same map. Hov^ever, with th« two documents that he has 
left us, no person in France can venture a doubt as to the existence of such a charter. 
(Signed) " CARON SAINT ESTIENNE. 

" Lyons, 6tA April, 1707." 



* Member of the Institute of France, and one of the greatest callectors of original writings 
in tliat kingdom. 






68 APPENDIX. 

No. III. 

Attestation by Esprit Flecuier, Bishop of Nismes. 

^' I have lately read, in the house of M. Sartre, at Caveirac, the copy of the Charter of 
the Earl of Stirling. I remarked in it many curious particulars, mixed up with a great 
number of uninteresting details. I therefore think that we ought to feel the greatest obli- 
gation to M. Mallet for having enabled the French public to judge, by the above note, of 
the extent and importance of the grants made to this Scotch nobleman. I find also that 
he has extracted the most essential clauses of the Charter; and, in translating them into 
French, has given a very correct version of them. M. Caron St. Estienne has requested 
me to bear testimony to this. I do so with the greatest pleasure. 

(Signed) " ESPRIT, Bishop of Nismes. 

" M Nismes, this 3d of June, 1707." 

Verified by M. Villenave, as follows: 

«'This attestation is in the handwriting of Esprit Flechier, Bishop of Nisme.?. 

(Signed) " VILLENAVE. 

"Paris, 2dJlugust, 1837." 

The authenticity of M. Villenave's signature is shown by the attestations of the public 
authorities, viz: 

"Seen by us, Mayor of the 11th Arrondissement of Paris, for the legalization of the 

signature of M. Villenave, (the father,) affixed to the above, and again at the top of this 

margin. 

Seal of the (Signed) " DESGRANGES. 

Mayor. 

" Paris, 2(Z Jlugust, 1837." 

'« Seen, for legalization of the signature of M. Desgranges, placed adjoining to this, by 
us, Judge, in the absence of the President of the Tribunal of First Instance of the Seine. 

Seal of llie Tribunal of First (Signed) " SALMON. 

Instance of the Dep. of 
the Sfcine. 

" Paris, 3(Z Afgtist, 1837." 

"Seen, for legalization of the signature of M. Salmon, Judge of the Civil Tribunal of 
the Seine. 

''Paris, 2d October, 1837." 

"By delegation, the Chief of the Office of the Minister of Justice. 

Seal of the (Signed) "PORET." 

Keeper of llie Seals 
of France. 

"The Minister of Foreign Affairs certifies to the truth of the annexed signature of M. 

Poret." 

"Paris, 2d October. 1837." 

"By authority of the Minister, the Chief of the Office of Chancery. 

Seal of the Gratis. (Signed) "DE LAMARRE." 

Minister of Foreign 
Affairs. 

"Seen, for legalization of the annexed signature of M. De Lamarre, Chief of the 
Office of Chancery in the Department of Forign Affairs." 



APPEXDIX. 69 

•'Paris, ilh October, 1837. 

"The Consul of her Britannic Majesty at Paris. 

Seal of Her {Signed> "THOMAS PICKFORD." 

Bntannic Majesty'* 
Consul at Paris. 



No. IV. 

Autograph Letter*, Mr. John Alexander, (grandson of the celebrated Earl of Stir- 
ling,) to the Marchioness de Lambert. 

Seal of tbe Keeper 
General of the archives of the 

Kinsdom. '^From Antrim, the 2oth ^lugust, 1707. 

"It would be impossible for me to express, Madam, how very sensible I am of the 
honor of your remembrance. I must also sincerely thank M. de Cambray,t since it was 
he who facilitated the journey of my friend, Mr. Hovenden, and by that means was the 
causeof your letter, and the copy you have had the kindness to send to me of the note 
respecting the charter of my grandfather, being so quickly put into my hands. I will an- 
swer in the best way I can the questions you put to me. 

"I am not, as you thought, heir to the titles of my family. Our chief at present is 
Henry, 5th Earl of Stirling, descended of the third son of my grandfather. He lives 
seme miles from London, has no children; but he has brothers, the eldest of whom is his 
presumptive heir. Of the first son there remain only the descendants of his daughters. 
The second left no children. My father was the fourth son. He married, to his first 
w^ife, an heiress of the house of Gsirtmore, in Scotland. My mother, of the family of 
Maxwell, was his second wife; but although he had daughters by the first, he never had 
any other son but myself. In order to finish this family genealogy, I must tell you, 
Madam, that my wife is a cadet of that of Hamilton, a ducal house in Scotland, and that 
Ehe has given me a son, named John, after my father and myself, and two daughters. I 
have so little idea at present that the titles and estates of Stirling can fall to my children, 
that I have encouraged my son's inclination for the ministry of our church of Scotland, 
and he is preparing himself for it in Holland, at the University of Leyden. 

"1 shall carefully preserve the interesting note of M. MaUet. The charter was regis- 
tered at one period in Scotland, as well as in Acadia; but pending the Civil War and the 
usurpation of Cromwell, some chests containing a part of the records of this kingdom 
were lost at sea during a storm; and, according to the ancient tradition of our family, tbe 
register in which this charter had been inscribed was of the number of those that were lost. 

"This, Madam, is all that I am able to say in answer to your questions, for it is impos- 
sible in this country of Ireland to obtain any other information respecting the registered 
charter. I believe my grandmother had given the original charter, (which she brought 
from Scotland, on coming to setile in Ireland,) to her son-in-law, Lord Montgomerie, iu 
order that he might keep it with care in Castle Comber, where he lived. I will inquire what 
tliis family may have done with it; and if I make any discovery, I shall have the honor 
to inform you. 



* These hues are written upon a stripe of paper pasted on the map above the letter, 
which is also pasted upon the map. 
t The Archbishop of Cambray. 



/U APPENDIX. 

"Never shall I forget, Madam, your kindness to me, nor the charms of the society 1 
always found at your house. So Jong as I live I shall be attached to you with the most 
respectful devotedness. 

(Signed) "JOHN ALEXANDER." 

Partly upon the margin, and partly below the signature of this letter, is the following note 
by Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambray: 

"The friends of the deceased, M. Ph. Mallet, will read, no doubt with much interest, 
this letter from a grandson of the Earl of Stirling. M. Cholet, of Lyons, setting off this 
day, 16th October, 1707, to return home, will have the honor to deliver it to M. Brossette,* 
by the desire of Madame de Lambert. 

"In order to authenticate it, I have written and signed this marginal note. 

(Signed) "FR. AR. DUKE OF CAMBRAY." 

"Seen by us, keeper general of the archives of the kingdom, for the verification of the 
signature, Fr. Jtr. Duke of Cambr-aij, and of the writing of the six lines which precede it, 
which lines are placed, namely, the three first upon the margin, and the three last at the 
bottom of a letter signed John Alexander, dated 25th August, 1707. 

"We have recognised the writing of the six lines, and the signature which follows them, 
as being conformable to the writing and to the signature of a letter of Fenelon, Archbishop 
of Cambray, dated 21st December, 1703, and deposited in the historical section of the ar- 
chives of the kingdom, series M, No. i)28. 

"In faith of which, we have signed, and caused the seal of the said archives to be 
afiixed, on the one part, upon the document which contains the writing of Fenelon, and, 
on the other, upon the back of the map of Canada, upon which this document is pasted. 

Paris, 21lh July, 1837. 

Seal of the Keeper (Signed) "DAUNOU." 

General of the Archives of the 
Kingdom. 

"Seen by us. Mayor of the 7th Arrondissement, for the legalization of the signature of 

M. Daunou, (affixed above,) keeper general of the archives of the kingdom. 

"Paris, Uh August, 1837. 

Seal of (Signed) "LECOQ,-" 

the Mayor of the 7th 
Arrond. 

"Seen, for the legalization of the signature of M. Lecoq, Mayor adjunct of the 7th 
Arrondissement, by us Judge, in the absence of the President of the Tribunal of First In- 
stance of the Seine. 

"Paris, ith August, 1837. 

Seal of the Tribunal (Signed) "H. DE ST ALBIN." 

of First Instance of the Dep. 
of the Seine. 

"Seen, for the legalization of the signature of M. de St. Albin, Judge of the Civil Tri- 
bunal of the Seine. 

Paris, 2d October, 1837. 

"By delegation, the Chief of the Office of the Minister of Justice. 
Seal of the (Signed) "PORET." 

Keeper of the Seals 



* A counsellor at Lyons, and a man of learning. 



APPENDIX. 71 

"The Minister of Foreign Affairs certifies to the truth of the annexed signature of M.. 
Poret. 

"Paris, 2d October, J837. 

"By authority of the Minister, the Chief of the Office of Chancery. 

Seal of the Gratis. (Signed) "DE LAMARRE." 

Minister of Foreign 
Affairs. 

"Seen, for the legalization of theannexed signature of M. de Lamarre, Chief of the 
Office of Chancery in the Department of Foreign Affairs. 
"Paris, 4th October, 1837. 

"The Consul of her Britannic Majesty at Paris. 

Seal of Her ^ (Signed) "THOMAS PICKFORD.*> 

Britannic Majesty's — -'™^- — *^ ° 

Consul at Paris. 



No. V. 

"Seal of Arms of J. Alexander, Mr. John Alexander, 

and part of of Antrim. the envelope of his letter." 



72 APPENDIX. 

No. VI. 

iNScniPTION TO THE MeMORT OF Mu. JoHN ALEXANDER, OF AnTRIM. 

(In English ) 

Here lieth the Body of 
T A r- ' ' his cony 

loHN Alexander, Esquire, Inscription, 

Late of Antrim, =">j Mr. Gor- 

don's ccrlifi- 
The only Son of the Honorable lohn Alexander, cate suiijoin- 

Who was the fourth Son of that Most Illustrious on' the' Map!'' 

And famous Statesman, 

William, Earl of Sterline, 

Principal Secretary for Scotland, 

Who had the singular merit of planting at his 

Sole expense, the first Colonie in 

Nova Scotia. 

He married Mary, Eldest Daughter of the 

Rev. Mr. Hamilton, of Bangor, 

By whom he had issue one son, lohn, who, 

At this present time, is the Presbyterian Minister 

At Stratford-on-Avon, in England, 

And two Daughters, 

Mary, who survives, and Elizabeth, Wife of 

lohn M. Skinner, Esquire, who died 7th Jan., 1710-'ll, 

Leaving three Children. 

He was a man of such endowments as added 

Lustre to his noble descent, and was universally 

Respected for hie Piety and Benevolence. 

He was the best of Husbands : 

As a Father, most Indulgent : As a Friend, 

Warm, Sincere, and Faithfull. 

He departed this Life 

At Templepatrick, in the County of Antrim, 

On the 19th day of April, 1712. 

This is a faithfull copy of the Inscription to the memory of John Alexander, Esquire, 

upon the tablet over his tomb at Newtoun-Ardes, county of Down, Ireland. 

W. C. GORDON, Jun. 
•Stratford-upon-Avon, Oct. 6, 1723. 



No. VII. 
Note underneath No. VI.* 



" This inscription was communicated by Madame de Lambert. Since the death of Mr. 
Alexander, in 1712, this lady has not ceased to give marks of her kindness and friend- 
ship to the son of that distinguished man. The son is advantageously known in England 
as a minister of the Protestant worship, and as a learned philologist. In the knowledge 
of the Oriental languages he is almost without competitors. He is at the head of the Col- 
lege for the Education of Young Ministers, established at Stratford, in the county of 
Warwick." 

* Drawn up and written, it is supposed, by M. Broaaette. 



APPENDIX. 73 



DOCUMENTS 



Authenticated hy the aged Solicitor of the family and other gentlemen , 
and found by the Jury to be genuine. 



No. I. 
Anonym,ous Note to the Defender. 

The enclosed was in a small cash-box, which was stolen from the late Wilham Hum- 
phreys, Esq. at the time of his removal from Digbeth-house, Birmingham, to Fair Hill. 
The person who committed the theft was a young- man in a situation in trade which 
placed him above suspicion. Fear of detection, and other circumstances, caused the box 
to be carefully put away, and it was forgot that the packet of papers was left in it. 
This discovery has been made since the death of the person alluded to, which took place 
last month. His family being now certain that the son of Mr. Humphreys is the Lord 
Stirling who has lately published a narrative of his case, they have requested a lady, 
going to London, to leave the packet at his Lordship's publishers, a channel for its con- 
veyance pointed out by the book itself, and which they hope is quite safe. His Lordship 
will perceive that the seals have never been broken. The family of the deceased, for 
obvious reasons, must remain unknown. They make this reparation, but cannot be 
expected to court disgrace and infamy. 
April 17, 1837. 

This note was opened in my presence, and found to contain the packet superscribed, 

'Some of my Wife's 

'Family Papers,' \ 

sealed with three black seals bearing the same impression. 

London, 22d Jpril, 1837. Wm. Scorer, Public Notary. 

Witness, Edw. Francis Fennell, Solicitor, .32, Bedford Row, London. 



APPENDIX. 



No. II. — Reduced Emblazoned Pedigree of the Earls of Stirling. 



No, 35. Part 

of the Genealogical Tree 

of the 

Alexanders of Menstry, 

Earls of Stirling in Scotland,. 

shewing 
only the fourth and now existing 

Branch. 
Reduced to pocket size from the 

large emblazoned Tree in the 

possession of Mrs. Alexander, 

of King Street, Birm. 

By me, 

Tho^ Campbell. 

Jlpril 15, 1759. 



John, 

Eldest Son, Bom, 

at Dublin, in 173&, 

heir 

to the 

Titles & Estates.. 



Benjamin, 

2nd Son, 

Born at Dublin 

in 1737. 



Mart, 

Eldest Daur, 

Born at Dublin, 

in 1733. 



Hannah, 

2nd Daur, 

Born at Dublin j 

in 1741. 



John, 
6th Earl of Stirling, 

(De Jure,) 

Md Hannah Higgs, 

of Old Swinford. 

Died at Dublin, 

Nov. 1, 1743, 

Aged 57. 

Bur'' there. 

I 



Mary, 

Eldest Daur. 

Born in 1683, 

Died 

unmar'd. 



Elizabeth, 

Born 1685, 

Md J. M. Skinner 

Died 1711, 

leaving 

issue. 



, r 

John, 

Marry 'd 

Mary Hamilton 

of Bangor, 

Settled at Antrim 

after living many years 

in Germany. 

Died 1712. 

Bur'J at Newtown. 



Janet, 

only 

Surviving ChiW 

of the 

heiress of 

Gartmore„ 



John, 

4th Son— Marry 'd 

!.• Agnes Graham, 

heiress of Gartmore. 

2. Elizabeth Maxwell, 

of Londonderry. 

Settled in Ireland 

in 1646. 

Died 1665. 



William, 

1st Earl of Stirling, 

B. 1580. 

M. Janet Erskine. 

Had issue, 

7 Sons and 3 Daiirs, 

Died 1640. 

Bur<i at 

Stirling. 



APPENDIX. 75 

No. III. 

Letter, Dr. Benjamin Alexander to Rev. John Alexander of 

Birmingham. 

Rev^ Mr Alexander, Birmingham. 

Dear Bro"", 

Mr Palmer is not at home, but I will take care of the letter. I have 
but little time to write at present, yet, as Mr Solly is going to-night, and oifers to take 
this, I must tell you, Campbell has written to me. The report we heard last year about 
the agents of W. A. is too true. No other copy of the inscription can be had at New- 
town. The country people say, they managed one night to get the slab down, and 'tis 
thought they bury'd it. However, C. does not think you need mind this less, as Mr 
Littleton's copy can be proved. Mr Denison tells Campbell, his copy of grandfather 
A.'s portrait will be very like when finished. At the back of the original, old Mr 
Denison pasted a curious mem., from which it appears, that our grandfather reC^ his 
early education at Londonderry, under 'the watchful eye of Mr Maxwell, his maternal 
grandsire.' At the age of sixteen, the Dowager-Countess wished him to be sent to 
Glasgow College; but at last it was thought better for him to go to a German university. 
He attained high distinction as a scholar, remained many years abroad, and visited foreign 
courts. Please to give duty and love to Mamma, love to sisters, and be yourself health}- 
and content. 

¥"■ affectionate Bro"", 
Land, .^ufft 20, 1765. B. Alexander. 



No. l\. 
A Letter, A. E. Baillie to Rev. John Alexander of Birmingham. 

For Rev. Mr Jn° Alexander. 
Rev. Sir, Bnhlin, Sept. 16, 1765. 

I was sorry to hear of y lawless act at Newton, but as 1 tell Mr Deni- 
son, I shall be ready to come forward if you want me. I was about twenty-one when I 
attended y grandfather's funerall. He was taken ill while visitting a friend at Temple- 
patrick, and dyed y", for he cou'd not be removed. Mr Livingstone, a verry old friend 
ofy family, wrote y^ inscription, w'' y'' claimant from America got destroyed. I always 
heard y' y great gr. father, y*' Hono''''^ Mr. Alexander, (who was known in the country 
as Mr. Alexander of Gartmoir), dyed at Derry: but for y destruction of y^ parish regis* 
ters in the north by y'' Papists, during y"^ civil war from 1689 to 1692, you mit have got 
yo certificates you want. 

I am w'h Friend Denison till October; so if you have more questions to put to me, 
please to direct to his care. Till then, 

I remain. Rev'* Sir, Y" respectfully, 

A. E. Baillie. 



No. V. 

Letter, Dr Benjatnin Alexander to Mrs Alexander, King Street, 

Birmingham . 
To Mrs. Alexander, King Street, Birmingham. 

Honi^ and D"" Mamma, 

Received y letter yesterday by Mr Kettle. I write instantly to prevent 
more mischief. Take no physic any body — foolish practice to weaken constitutions for a 
foolish rash — let it go off as it will — don't you see how it has hurt Mary? Let sister 
Hannah take antimonial wine, thirty or forty drops twice a-day. This will carry off the 
rash by perspiration, and safely. I send you the portrait of gr. father Alexander, which 
Campbell did for Bro"". Sisters never saw it. C. says we can't recover Gartmo 
The other Scotch property went to 
half sister to my gri^fatlier, but w 
succeed in Ireland if we begin soon 

It will be now necessary to pay Campbell's bill. It comes to two and twenty pounds 
thirteen shilP. Let me know in yo'' next how you propose furnishing the money. 

I am, in great haste, and with 
love to sisters, y dutif. and 

affec Son 
Lonrf., Jui?/ 26 1766. B. Alexander, 



76 APPENDIX. 

No. VI. 
Note on Back of Copy Portrait of Mr. John Alexander of Antrim 




JOHN ALEXANDER, Esq. 

of Antrim. 

Died April 19, 1712. 

From the Original Painting. 

Done at Versailles in his fortieth 

year: now in the possession of 

P. Denison, Esq. of Dublin. 



Thos. Campbell, Pinx. 



Note. 



(On the back.) 
Mr Denison believes myg' gr. father lost his first wife, Agnes, in 1637, 
and that he met Miss Maxwell at Comber, and was marr^ to her in 1639. If so, and my 
gr. father the next year made his appearance in this world, we may suppose the original 
portrait was painted in 1679. B. A. 







Ill 



/ 



^■^^y<ru. C-t-jI |&<rwj/ y^ 



"V 



X 



^^^^.l._ a^^ ^^ \ ^.i^^A^i e.avc^„..k KpJ^^ JcU P.c^c^fe^e- \ =-^ \ 



f'-p 






\ 



■J , p 






J-L^ i^T ) fL li^ fc^ ^_ 



iS^Li^ 









A-^^-^ /y^^ey..^ CZ),, 



■ !hl^Jj.^ ^JU^^/-2^{/^^T^2^^.2 .. 



xf ^' J-'Q-^-z^ i- «<-««, &^j~i, ..(V^ ■ 'tS 



V/- 



^^ej ^-i t^ i^y* ^("l 



*w-(t.(^.A, j„^„ /■'^il,.^^ js^ "v^ a-,.i~y /i/Z^ A.'Kj- cj^ 






1^ 



•~ri.<ry 



~r 



■ J'- ■4>w-</^-''^f^?$S^t£- ^K. 



.iy-.i^O..K^,l 



j,L 






.y^. 




^i... 



■ i)',«^i&;-. J,^^^J4^ -UL..^^ "»^^ g„-Ar& 



'/'/ 










































->K/.,^ 









^ 



H-n.„-f, 









s 



'*TA 



tix. 



7" 



Carte 

Du Canada 

OL' DE L A 

>|fouvELLE France. 

Decouvertc-3 qui y ont eV fakes 

u/. fri-anj nomire '^c P.,ilal!onJ !j}if>ru<u'fj oii-ma^ylrua 

I: rAfaJcmic. IiuY„l.! .1<..< .Sciences 

„H n :^.r &.o5r.,pl)o clu R»y 

W JVfWW 






,4- - -'"A ■-- '■annate 



.,^<h- Ca^-v^izT' 






J^,>v^. 













'^''^'r^ ''"-^""^ "^--^ - i'i'f •^••^ 'i^j>i<^ c^itn. (t^ 

itr^Jr ~-i- /U^ e.vK.1. W 6ci cc*ru>:4v 3i U'^ f<suu^J «,^a^ 











^ 



c^sf^^ 



-^^2V 










V 



lyj.'^i ^ 



Co, 



lis 






.-,s^ 










/."/aTSNV^ r 



'•V^ 






■v ,< 



•V 



.^•' 

J*^' 









V ,^X^■ 



^^.0^' 



:' '^• 



-t/^ c; 



-^^ 



.0' 



r c ° ^ •' /, 










